ru  l 


r,l  1  IRARY 

i>i-  Tin: 

University  of  California. 

(  t]  K'l"  OF 

Received        iSr/r~z/^  .  i8<*3 . 

successions  No.%^33^z/-^       Class  No. 


"—SI 


J8 


&?B 


• 


. 


V 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/appealinbriggsheOOpresrich 


THE    APPEAL 


THE    BRIGGS   HERESY   CASE 

BEFORE  THE 

GENERAL    ASSEMBLY    OF    THE    PRESBYTERIAN 

CHURCH   IN  THE   UNITED  STATES 

OF    AMERICA. 


COMPILED   BY 


JOHN   J.   McCOOK, 
M 

A   MEMBER   OF  THE   PROSECUTING   COMMITTEE. 


New  York  : 
John  C.  Rankin  Co.,  Printers. 

1893. 


&7M3 


S~33f<^ 


TENTS. 


PAGE 

I. — Introduction 5 

II. — Notice  of  appeal 11 

HI. — Appeal  with  specifications  of  error 12 

History  of  the  case  prior  to  the  appeal .    13 

Judgment  of  General  Assembly  of  1892,  reversing 

the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  dismissing  the  case. ...  18 
Final    judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 

January  9th,  1893 20 

Grounds   of  the   appeal  with  the  specifications  of 

error  alleged 26-41 

rV. — Proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  during  the 

trial  below 43 

Mandate  of  General  Assembly  of  1892,  ordering  a 

new  trial 43 

Status  of  Prosecuting  Committee  questioned 47 

Decision  of  Moderator  as  to    status  of  Committee 

with  reasons  therefor 48 

Moderator's  decision  appealed  from  and  sustained 

by  Presbytery 49 

Amended  charges  and  specifications ....     50 

Evidence  introduced  by  Prosecuting  Committee. .   92-94 

Evidence  introduced  by  Dr.  Briggs 95 

Exception  by  Prosecution  as  to  matter  improperly 

entered  upon  the  stenographic  record 105 

Protest  as  to  same 110 

Answer  to  the  protest 122 

Order   of  procedure  in   takitig   the  vote  upon  the 

charges  and  specifications 138 

Motion  to  exclude  Professors  and  Trustees  of  Union 

Theological  Seminary  from  voting 141 

Drs.  George  Alexander  and  Henry  Van   Dyke   and 

Elder  Jaffray,   appointed   Committee  to  prepare  the 

judgment  of  Presbytery 143 

Vote  of  thanks  to  Moderator,  etc 144 

Vote  of  each  member  of  Presbytery  in  detail  on  the 

charges  and  specifications 145 


4 

PAGE 

Protest  as  to  Rev.  Mr.  Mingin's  vote 165 

Answer  to  the  protest 166 

Report  of  Committee  and  form  of  final  judgment . .  .  166 
Report  adopted  and  the  final  judgment  entered  by 

the  Presbytery 169 

Exception   of  Prosecuting  Committee  as  to  steno- 

grapic  report  of  the  trial 170 

Exception    of  Prosecuting  Committee   to  the  final 

judgment 170 

V. — Appellant's  opening  argument  in  favor  of  entertaining  the 
appeal  presented  by  Dr.  Birch,  Chairman  of  the  Prose- 
cuting Committee 172 

VI. — Appellant's  closing  argument  in  favor  of  entertaining  the 
appeal  presented  by  Mr.  McCook,  a  member  of  the 
Prosecuting  Committee 190 

VII. — Preliminary  statement  submitted  by  Mr.  McCook,  as  to 
procedure  and  designating  the  portions  of  the  record 
to  be  used  by  the  Appellant  during  the  argument  of 
the  appeal 259 

VIII. — Appellant's  opening  argument  on  the  merits  and  in  favor 
of  sustaining  the  appeal  presented  by  Dr.  Lampe,  a 
member  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee 264 

IX. — Appellant's  closing  argument  in  favor  of  sustaining  the 
appeal,  being  Mr.  McCook's  reply  to  Dr.  Briggs'  argu- 
ment upon  the  merits  of  the  appeal 347 

X. — Appendix  containing  the  judgment  of  the  General 
Assembly  and  vote  of  thanks  to  the  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee    374 


I. 

Introduction. 


This  volume  contains  the  printed  documents  and  argu- 
ments submitted  by  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  repre- 
senting the  Appellant,  in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  Appellant, 
against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  Appellee, 
before  the  One  Hundred  and  Fifth  General  Assembly 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  session  at  Washington,  D. 
C,  May,  1893,  together  with  the  Judgment  of  the 
Assembly  therein. 

The  case  came  before  the  General  Assembly  upon  ap- 
peal from  the  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  entered  on  the  9th  day  of  January,  1893. 

The  history  of  the  case  prior  to  the  hearing  before  the 
General  Assembly  is  given  in  the  appeal  as  printed  at 
page  13. 

The  proceedings  before  the  Assembly  in  the  judicial 
case  were  as  follows  : 

On  May  23d,  the  Judicial  Committee,  by  its  Chairman, 
the  Rev.  George  D.  Baker,  D.  D.,  brought  in  its  report 
upon  the  appeal,  which  was  entitled  "Judicial  Case  Num- 
ber I.''  A  minority  report  was  presented  by  the  Rev. 
Samuel  J.  Niccolls,  D.  D.  The  report  of  the  Committee 
was  amended  by  the  General  Assembly  and  adopted  as  a 
whole,  as  follows  : 


6 

"  In  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
D.  D.,  being  an  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly  from  a 
decision  and  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  rendered  January  9,  1893,  tne  Judicial  Committee 
beg  leave  respectfully  to  report  that  they  have  examined 
the  papers  pertaining  to  this  case,  and  find  : " 

"  1.  That  the  Appellant  in  this  case  is  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  represented  by 
its  Prosecuting  Committee,  appointed  by  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York,  and,  as  such  Appellant,  has  a  right  of  Ap- 
peal to  this  Assembly  as  an  original  party,  and  said  Pros- 
ecuting Committee  is  entitled  to  conduct  the  prosecution, 
in  all  its  stages,  in  whatever  judicatory,  until  the  final  issue 
be  reached.'' 

"2.  That  the  notice  of  appeal  in  this  case  has  been  given, 
and  the  Appeal  and  specifications  of  error  alleged,  and  the 
record  in  the  case,  have  been  filed  in  due  time,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  provisions  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  Sees. 
96  and  97,  and  that  said  Appeal  is  accordingly  in  order." 

'■*  3.  They,  therefore,  respectfully  recommend  that  the 
Appeal  be  entertained  and  the  case  be  issued." 

"  In  order  to  the  determination  of  this  recommendation, 
your  Committee  submit  the  following  resolutions  :  " 

"  Resolved,  1 .  That  the  General  Assembly  finds  that  due 
notice  of  the  Appeal  in  this  case  has  been  given,  and  that 
the  Appeal   and  the  specifications  of  the  errors  alleged 


have  been  filed  in  due  time,  and  that  the  Appeal  is  in 
order,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline." 

"  Resolved,  2.  That  after  the  judgment,  the  notice  of  ap- 
peal, the  Appeal,  and  specifications  of  errors  alleged  have 
been  read,  then  the  parties  shall  be  heard  respectively  as 
to  whether  said  Appeal  shall  be  entertained." 

"  Resolved,  3.  That  the  Appellants  be  allowed,  if  they  so 
desire,  one  hour  in  which  to  present  their  case  at  the 
beginning." 

"  Resolved,  4.  The  appellee  having  informed  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Judicial  Committee  that  he  would  probably 
need  five  hours  to  present  his  defence  of  the  action  of  the 
Presbytery  and  his  reply  to  the  Appellants,  that  five  hours 
shall  be  allowed  him,  should  he  wish  to  occupy  so  much 
time." 

"  Resolved,  5.  That  the  Appellants  be  allowed  two  hours 
to  reply  to  the  Appellee,  the  time  to  be  extended  should 
they  request  it,  not  to  exceed,  however,  the  limit  of  time 
allowed  to  the  Appellee." 

"  Resolved,  6.  That  four  hours  be  given  to  the  members 
of  the  judicatory  to  discuss  the  question  pending,  ten 
minutes  being  allowed  to  each  speaker ;  and  that  at  the 
end  of  that  time  a  vote  shall  be  taken  as  to  whether  the 
Appeal  shall  be  entertained.  (Minutes  General  Assembly, 
1893,  p.  104.)" 

The  General  Assembly  was  constituted  and  charged  as 


a  Court  on  May  23d,  and  thereupon,  in  compliance  with 
Section  99  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  the  judgment  of  the 
lower  Court,  the  notice  of  appeal,  the  appeal  and  the  speci- 
fications of  the  errors  alleged  were  read  by  the  Stated  Clerk. 

On  the  24th  and  25th  of  May,  the  parties  were  heard  ; 
the  Rev.  George  W.  F.  Birch,  D.  D.,  Chairman  of  the 
Prosecuting  Committee,  representing  the  Appellant,  pre- 
sented the  opening  argument  in  support  of  the  entertain- 
ment of  the  Appeal,  page  172. 

The  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  the  Appellee,  was 
then  heard  in  argument  against  entertaining  the  Appeal.* 

At  the  close  of  Dr.  Briggs's  argument,  Mr.  McCook  of 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  presented  the  Appellant's 
closing  argument  in  favor  of  entertaining  the  Appeal, 
which  will  be  found  at  page  190. 

On  May  26th,  the  General  Assembly,  by  a  vote  of  410 
to  145,  determined  to  entertain  the  appeal.  (Minutes 
General  Assembly,  1893,  P»  9^.) 

On  May  29th  the  Judicial  Committee  presented  a  further 
report,  fixing  the  time  to  be  allowed  to  the  Appellant  and 
the  Appellee  for  their  arguments  upon  the  merits  of  the 
appeal,  and  outlined  the  order  of  procedure  to  be  followed 
by  the  Court.  (Minutes  General  Assembly,  1893,  p.  132.) 
This  report  having  been  received  and  adopted  by  the 
Assembly,  Mr.  McCook,  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee, 
made  a  preliminary  statement  as  to  procedure  and  desig- 
nating the  portions  of  the  Record  to  be  used  by  the  Appel- 
lant during  the  argument  of  the  appeal,  page  259. 

*  The  Defence  of  Prof.  Briggs  before  the  General  Assembly,  page  35. 


The  Rev.  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  D.  D.,  of  the  Prosecuting 
Committee,  then  presented  the  Appellant's  opening  argu- 
ment upon  the  merits  of  and  in  favor  of  sustaining  the 
appeal,  page  264. 

On  May  29th  and  30th  Dr.  Briggs  presented  his  argu- 
ment to  the  General  Assembly  upon  the  merits  of  and 
against  sustaining  the  appeal.* 

At  the  close  of  Dr.  Briggs's  argument,  Mr.  McCook,  of 
the  Prosecuting  Committee,  presented  his  argument  in 
reply,  closing  the  case  for  the  Appellant,  page  347. 

In  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  Section  99  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  the  parties  having  been  heard,  the 
members  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  the  Judicatory 
appealed  from,  were  then  heard,  and  upon  the  call  of  the 
roll  an  opportunity  was  given  for  all  the  members  of  the 
General  Assembly  to  be  heard. 

A  vote  was  then  taken  on  each  specification  of  error 
alleged,  and  all  of  the  thirty-four  specifications  of  error, 
excepting  specifications  first  and  fifth,  under  the  fourth 
ground  of  appeal,  were  sustained,  and  the  appeal  was 
sustained  by  a  vote  of  379  to  116.  (Minutes  of  General 
Assembly,  1893,  P-  I4°-) 

A  Committee  was  then  appointed,  of  which  the  Rev. 
Thomas  A.  Hoyt,  D.  D.,  was  Chairman,  to  formulate  the 
Judgment  of  the  Assembly  in  the  case.  On  June  1st, 
the   Committee   reported   to   the    Assembly,    when    the 

*  The  Defence  of  Prof.  Briggs  before  the  General  Assembly,  p.  138. 


10 

form  of  Judgment  recommended  by  the  Committee  was 
adopted  by  the  Assembly  and  was  ordered  to  be  entered 
upon  the  records  of  the  Assembly  and  of  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York,  as  the  Judgment  in  the  case.  (Minutes 
General  Assembly,  1893,  pp.  163-5.) 

The  report  of  the  Committee  and  the  form  of  the 
Judgment  will  be  found  at  page  374. 

The  action  of  the  Assembly  expressing  its  approval  of 
the  conduct  of  the  case  by  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  is 
given  at  page  378. 

120  Broadway, 

New  York,  July,  1893. 


11 

II. 

Notice  of  Appeal 


New  York,  January  18th,  1893. 

To  the  Rev.  Samuel  D.  Alexander,  D.  D., 

Stated  Clerk  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York. 

Dear  Sir: 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  represented  by  the  undersigned  Prosecuting 
Committee,  in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  hereby  gives  written  notice  of  appeal,  with, 
specifications  of  the  errors  alleged,  in  the  said  case,  to 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  to  meet  at  Washington,  D.  C, 
on  the  third  Thursday  of  May,  A.  D.  1893,  from  the 
decision  and  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  sitting  in  a  judicial  capacity,  given  on  the  ninth 
day  of  January,  1893.  The  grounds  of  this  appeal  and 
the  specifications  of  the  errors  alleged,  are  hereto  at- 
tached and  made  a  part  of  this  notice. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  represented  by 


GEORGE  W.  F.  BIRCH, 
JOSEPH  J.  LAMPE, 
ROBERT  F.  SAMPLE, 
JOHN  J.  STEVENSON, 
JOHN  J.  McCOOK, 


Prosecuting 
Committee, 

Appellant. 


12 

III. 

Appeal  to  the  General  Assembly. 


New  York.  January  18th,  1893. 

To  the  Venerable  the  General  Assembly,  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  Greeting  : 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  represented  by  the  undersigned  Prosecuting 
Committee,  in  the  case  of  the  said  Presbyterian  Church 
against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  presents  the  fol- 
lowing Appeal  from  the  final  judgment  in  this  case,  ren- 
dered by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  on  the  ninth  day  of 
January,  1893,  with  the  grounds  therefor,  and  the  specifica- 
tions of  the  errors  alleged.  Believing  that  the  trial  of  the 
said  Dr.  Briggs  is  one  of  the  most  important  in  the  history 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  by  reason  of  the  dangerous 
errors  alleged  to  be  contained  in  the  Address  of  the  said 
Dr.  Briggs  at  his  inauguration  as  Professor  of  Biblical 
Theology  in  Union  Theological  Seminary,  delivered  on 
the  20th  day  of  January,  1891,  upon  which  Inaugural 
Address  charges  and  specifications  were  tabled  and 
prosecution,  in  compliance  with  Sections  10  and  11  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline,  was  initiated  by  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  in  the  name  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America ;  and  believing  that  the 
distinct  and  definite  condemnation  of  those  alleged  errors, 
by  the  Supreme  Judicatory  of  the  said  Presbyterian 
Church,  is  necessary  in  order  to  prevent  their  spread  and 
influence  in  the  denomination ;  and,  while  having  the 
highest  respect  for  the  Synod  of  New  York,  believing  that 
a  special  responsibility  rests  upon  the  General  Assembly 


13 

which  is  charged  with  the  duty  of  deciding  in  all  contro- 
versies respecting  doctrine ;  of  reproving,  warning  or 
bearing  testimony  against  error  in  doctrine  in  any  Church, 
Presbytery  or  Synod,  and  in  cases  that  affect  or  concern 
the  promotion  of  truth  and  holiness  through  all  the 
Churches  under  its  care,  as  set  forth  in  Chapter  XII., 
Sections  IV.  and  V.,  of  the  Form  of  Government ;  and  in 
view  of  the  desirableness  of  the  speediest  settlement  of 
this  most  important  case,  do  hereby  appeal  to  and 
request  your  Venerable  Body  to  enter  immediately  upon 
the  consideration  and  judicial  investigation  of  the  appeal 
hereby  presented,  to  issue  the  case,  and  to  finally  deter- 
mine the  important  questions  involved,  so  as  to  secure 
the  purity  and  the  peace  of  the  Church  at  the  earliest 
possible  day. 

In  the  further  prosecution  of  the  case  on  the  part  of  the 
said  Presbyterian  Church,  the  Appellant,  represented  by 
the  said  Prosecuting  Committee,  respectfully  sets  forth : 

That  on  the  thirteenth  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1891,  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  appointed  a  Committee  to  con- 
sider the  Inaugural  Address  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.  D.,  in  its  relation  to  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  that  on  May  eleventh,  A.  D.  1891,  the  said  Committee 
presented  to  said  Presbytery  a  report  which  was  accepted, 
and  its  recommendation,  "that  the  Presbytery  enter  at 
once  upon  the  judicial  investigation  of  the  case,"  was 
adopted  by  the  said  Presbytery,  and  thereupon  it  was 
"Resolved,  That  a  Committee  be  appointed  to  arrange 
and  prepare  the  necessary  proceedings  appropriate  in  the 
case  of  Dr.  Briggs";  and  the  Rev.  G.  W.  F.  Birch,  D.  D., 
Rev.  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Robert  F.  Sample, 
D.  D.,  and  Ruling  Elders  John  J.  Stevenson  and  John  J. 
McCook  were  appointed  such  Committee  in  conformity 
with  the  provisions  of  Section  11  of  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline. 

That  after  the  initiation  of  the  prosecution  by  the  said 
Judicatory,  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  as  above  re- 
cited, the  said  Prosecuting  Committee  entered  upon  its 
duties. 


14 

That  as  said  prosecution  was  initiated  by  a  Judicatory 
and  not  by  individual  prosecutors,  in  compliance  with 
the  provisions  of  Section  10  of  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
became  the  prosecutor,  and  an  original  party  in  the 
case,  and  was  represented  by  the  said  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee, which  said  Committee,  under  Section  11  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  was  charged  with  the  duty  of  conduct- 
ing the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages  in  whatever  judica- 
catory,  until  the  final  issue  be  reached. 

That  at  the  meeting  of  said  Presbytery,  held  on  the 
fifth  day  of  October,  A.  D.  1891,  the  said  Prosecuting 
Committee  presented  charges  and  specifications  in  the 
case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D., 
which  were  read  in  the  presence  of  the  Judicatory,  and 
were  then  served  by  the  Moderator  upon  the  said  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D„  together  with  a  citation,  citing 
him  to  appear  and  plead  to  the  said  charges  and  speci- 
fications at  a  meeting  of  the  said  Presbytery,  to  be  held 
on  November  fourth,  A.  D.  1891. 

That  after  said  charges  and  specifications  had  been 
presented  to  the  said  Presbytery  and  had  been  read,  the 
Presbytery  entertained  a  motion  made  by  the  Rev.  George 
Alexander,  D.  D.,  to  arrest  the  judicial  proceedings  and 
to  discharge  the  Prosecuting  Committee  from  further 
consideration  of  the  case,  as  follows  : 

"  Whereas,  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  at  its  meeting 
in  May  last,  on  account  of  utterances  contained  in  an 
inaugural  address  delivered  January  20th,  1891,  appointed 
a  Committee  to  formulate  charges  against  the  author  of 
that  address,  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  and  whereas, 
since  that  action  was  taken,  the  accused  has  supplemented 
those  utterances  by  responding  to  certain  categorical 
questions.     *     *    * 

"  Therefore,  Resolved,  that  Presbytery,  without  pro- 
nouncing on  the  sufficiency  of  these  later  declarations 
to  cover  all  the  points  concerning  which  the  accused 
has  been  called  in  question,  with  hearty  appreciation 


15 

of  the  faithful  labors  of  the  Committee,  deems  it  expe- 
dient to  arrest  the  judicial  proceedings  at  this  point,  and 
hereby  discharges  the  Committee  from  further  con- 
sideration of  the  case." 

On  the  aforesaid  motion  to  dismiss  the  case,  as  expressed 
specifically  in  the  words  u  to  arrest  the  judicial  proceed- 
ings" and  "hereby  discharges  the  Committee  from  fur- 
ther consideration  of  the  case,"  the  Presbytery  by  a  yea 
and  nay  vote  refused  to  adopt  the  above  resolution  and 
to  dismiss  the  case. 

That  on  the  said  fifth  day  of  October,  A.  D.  1891,  the  said 
Presbytery  adjourned  to  meet  on  the  fourth  day  of  No- 
vember, A.  D.  1891,  the  day  upon  which  the  said  citation 
was  made  returnable,  and  that  at  said  meeting  on  the 
fourth  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1891,  the  said  Presbytery 
was  charged  as  a  Judicatory  in  accordance  with  Rule  XL. 
of  General  Rules  for  Judicatories,  and  thereupon  the  said 
Presbytery  proceeded  in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  against  the  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  and  the  said  Dr.  Briggs  then  pre- 
sented a  paper  purporting  to  be  objections  to  the  sufficiency 
of  the  said  charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  legal 
effect ;  that  said  paper  was  largely  an  answer  to  said 
charges  or  an  argument  upon  the  merits  of  the  case,  and 
was  denominated  by  the  said  Dr.  Briggs  himself,  a  "  Re- 
sponse to  the  Charges  and  Specifications  submitted  to  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  by  Prof.  Charles  Augustus 
Briggs,  D.  D.,"  and  that  the  said  Presbytery  thereupon 
permitted  members  of  the  said  Presbytery  to  discuss  the 
merits  of  the  main  question  on  behalf  of  the  accused  be- 
fore and  without  permitting  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
to  be  heard  on  the  merits  of  the  case- 

That  a  question  as  to  the  status  of  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  was  raised,  and  the  Moderator  decided  that 
the  Committee  was  properly  a  Committee  of  Prosecution 
in  view  of  the  previous  action  of  the  Presbytery,  and  was 
in  the  house  as  an  original  party  under  the  provisions  of 
Section  10  of  the  Book  of  Discipline.  That  an  appeal 
was  taken  from  the  decision  of  the  Moderator,  the  ques- 


16 

tion  was  divided,  and  the  Moderator  was  sustained  in  the 
point,  that  the  Committee  was  in  the  house  as  a  properly 
appointed  Committee  of  Prosecution,  and  also  sustained 
in  the  point  that  the  Committee,  as  representing  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
was  an  original  party  in  the  case. 

That  on  said  November  fourth,  A.  D.  1891,  the  said 
Presbytery,  after  fully  hearing  Dr.  Briggs'  "Response 
to  the  Charges  and  Specifications,"  and  without  permit- 
ting the  Prosecuting  Committee  to  be  heard  on  the  merits 
of  the  case,  upon  the  motion  of  the  Rev.  Henry  Van 
Dyke,  D.  D.,  made  and  entered  on  its  records  its  decision 
and  final  judgment  dismissing  the  said  case  in  the  follow- 
ing words,  to  wit : 

"JZesolved,  that  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  having 
listened  to  the  paper  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  against  him  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the 
charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  legal  effect ;  and 
without  approving  of  the  positions  stated  in  his  Inaugural 
Address,  at  the  same  time  desiring  earnestly  the  peace 
and  quiet  of  the  Church,  and  in  view  of  the  declarations 
made  by  Dr.  Briggs  touching  his  loyalty  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  the  Westminster  Standards,  and  of  his 
disclaimers  of  interpretations  put  on  some  of  his  words, 
deems  it  best  to  dismiss  the  case,  and  hereby  does  so 
dismiss  it." 

From  the  aforesaid  action  of  the  said  Presbytery  of 
New  York  on  the  said  fourth  day  of  November,  A.D.  1891, 
in  dismissing  the  case,  the  Prosecuting  Committee  took 
an  appeal  in  the  name  and  on  behalf  of  the  said  Pres- 
byterian Church  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbjr- 
terian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  provisions  of  Sections  94  to  102,  inclu- 
sive, of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

The  said  Appeal  was  made  upon  six  different  grounds, 
supported  by  twenty-five  specifications  of  error,  and 
together  with  the  written  notice  of  Appeal  required  by 
Section  96  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  was  given  to  the 


17 

Stated  Clerk  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  and  lodged 
with  the  Stated  Clerk  of  the  General  Assembly,  within 
the  time  required  by  Sections  96  and  97  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline. 

The  Appeal,  the  Record  and  other  documents  in  the  case 
were  referred  to  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  1892  at  Portland,  Oregon,  and  the  follow- 
ing action  was  had  thereon : 

"  The  Judicial  Committee  presented  its  report  in  the 
case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  U.  S.  of  A.  vs.  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  which  was  accepted,  as  follows  : 

The  Judicial  Committee  respectfully  reports  that  it  has 
carefully  considered  the  documents  submitted  to  it  in 
this  case,  and  adopted  the  following  resolutions : 

1.  That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  the  Appeal 
taken  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  an  original  party  represented  by  the  "  Commit- 
tee of  Prosecution,"  appointed  under  Section  11  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  has  been  taken  from  the  final  judg- 
ment of  the  Presbytery  in  dismissing  the  case  ;  and  that 
the  said  Committee  had  the  right  to  take  this  Appeal 
representing  the  said  original  party. 

2.  That  it  finds  that  the  notice  of  the  Appeal  has  been 
given,  and  that  the  Appeal,  Specifications  of  Error,  and 
Record  have  been  filed  in  accordance  with  Sections  96  and 
97  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and  the  appeal  is  in  order. 

3.  That,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Committee,  the  Appeal 
should  be  entertained,  and  a  time  set  apart  for  the  hear- 
ing of  the  case. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  the  Committee  reports 
that  the  Appeal  is  in  order,  and  that  the  General  Assem- 
bly should  proceed,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
Section  99  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  by  causing  the 
judgment  appealed  from,  the  notice  of  Appeal,  the  Appeal 
and  the  specifications  of  the  errors  alleged,  to  be  read ; 
then  to  hear  the  appellant  by  the  Committee  of  Prosecu- 
tion; then  the  defendant  in  person,  or  by  his  counsel;  then 
the  appellant  by  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  in  reply, 
upon  the  question,   "  Whether  the  Appeal  shall  be  enter- 


18 

tained?"     (Minutes  of  General  Assembly,  1892,  page  90.) 

The  General  Assembly  was  then  constituted  and  charged, 
in  accordance  with  Rule  XL.  of  the  General  Rules  for 
Judicatories,  and  during  its  sessions,  on  the  25th.  and  26th 
days  of  May,  1892,  heard  the  Arguments  of  the  Appellant 
and  the  Appellee  upon  the  question  whether  the  Appeal 
should  or  should  not  be  entertained,  the  Assembly 
adopted  the  report  of  the  Judicial  Committee  and  the 
Appeal  was  entertained.  (Minutes  of  General  Assembly, 
1892,  pp.  118  and  119.) 

Against  this  action  of  the  Assembly,  uin  entertain- 
ing the  Appeal  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  *  *  * 
and  so  giving  the  Committee  which  preferred  the  Charges 
against  Dr.  Briggs,  standing  before  the  Assembly  and 
right  of  Appeal  as  an  original  party,"  a  protest  was 
presented  by  the  Rev.  S.  J.  McPherson,  D.D.,  and 
others,  which  protest  was  ordered  to  be  entered  on  the 
Minutes  of  the  Assembly  without  answer.  (Minutes  of 
General  Assembly,  1892,  pp.  153,  205.) 

The  Appeal,  upon  its  merits,  was  then  fully  argued  by 
the  Appellant  and  the  Appellee  before  the  General  Assem- 
bly, on  May  28th,  1892  (Minutes  of  General  Assembly,  1892, 
p.140),  and  the  provisions  of  Section  99  of  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline having  been  fully  complied  with,  each  of  the 
twenty-five  specifications  of  error  was  sustained.  The 
yeas  and  nays  were  ordered  upon  the  question,  "Shall 
the  Appeal  be  sustained?"  and  431  Commissioners  voted 
to  sustain  the  Appeal  and  87  voted  not  to  sustain. 
(Minutes  of  General  Assembly,  1892,  p.  141.) 

On  May  30th,  ]  892,  the  Committee  appointed  to  draft 
a  form  of  Judgment  to  be  entered  in  the  said  case  sub- 
mitted its  report  and  recommended  the  form  of  decree  or 
order,  which  was  adopted,  (Minutes  of  the  General 
Assembly,  1892,  p.  152)  and  is  as  follows  : 

"  The  Presbyterian  Church  1  .         ,  »    <    ,,     .   , 
m  the  APPea/  ^S  1%  frgS" 

U™   STATES  oeAmERXCA        |>      JJ*  *  £/S£ 

Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.  J      dismissing  the  case. 
"The  General  Assembly  having,  on  the  28th  day  of 


19 

May,  1892,  duly  sustained  all  the  specifications  of  error 
alleged  and  set  forth  in  the  appeal  and  specifications  in 
this  case, 

"It  is  now,  May  30,  1892,  ordered,  that  the  judgment 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  entered  November  4, 
1891,  dismissing  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America  against  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.  D.,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  reversed. 
And  the  case  is  remanded  to  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  for  a  new  trial,  with  directions  to  the  said 
Presbytery  to  proceed  to  pass  upon  and  determine  the 
sufficiency  of  the  charges  and  specifications  in  form  and 
legal  effect,  and  to  permit  the  Prosecuting  Committee  to 
amend  the  specifications  or  charges,  not  changing  the 
general  nature  of  the  same,  if,  in  the  furtherance  of 
justice,  it  be  necessary  to  amend,  so  that  the  case  may  be 
brought  to  issue  and  tried  on  the  merits  thereof  as 
speedily  as  may  be  practicable. 

"And  it  is  further  ordered,  that  the  Stated  Clerk  of  the 
General  Assembly  return  the  record,  and  certify  the  pro- 
ceedings had  thereon,  with  the  necessary  papers  relating 
thereto,  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York." 

This  mandate  of  the  General  Assembly  was  received  by 
the  Stated  Clerk  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  and 
submitted  to  the  Presbytery  at  its  meeting  held  on  the 
13th  day  of  June,  1892,  when  the  Presbytery 

"Resolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  Presbytery,  the 
issue  of  the  case  is  impracticable  during  the  Summer,  but 
will  receive  the  attention  of  Presbytery  on  its  reassembling 
in  the  Fall." 

On  the  9th  day  of  November,  1892,  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  met,  was  constituted  and  charged,  in  accordance 
with  Rule  XL.  of  the  General  Rules  for  Judicatories. 
During  the  first  day's  session  of  the  said  Judicatory,  in 
compliance  with  the  said  mandate  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, and  the  provisions  of  Section  22  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  the  said  Judicatory  permitted  the  Prosecut- 
ing Committee  to  amend  the  Charges  and  Specifications 
theretofore  submitted  in  this  case,  and  the  Prosecuting 


20 

Committee  thereupon  submitted  amended  Charges  and 
Specifications.  In  the  furtherance  of  justice,  and  with 
an  earnest  desire  to  fairly  and  fully  meet  and  conform  to 
the  suggestions  and  objections  raised  by  Dr.  Briggs  in  his 
response  to  the  original  Charges  and  Specifications,  so  far 
as  such  objections  were  valid  or  well  taken,  the  Prosecuting 
Committee,  without  departing  from  or  changing  the  gen- 
eral nature  of  the  original  Charges,  made  such  amend- 
ments as  appeared  to  them  to  be  necessary  to  secure 
clearness  and  certainty  as  to  what  was  charged  ;  also  to 
prevent  the  Charges  from  covering  more  than  one  offence 
and  to  make  the  Specifications,  and  the  proofs  cited  in 
support  thereof,  germane  and  pertinent  to  the  Charges 
they  were  intended  to  sustain.  The  sessions  of  said  Ju- 
dicatory were  continued  with  certain  interruptions 
for  a  number  of  days,  during  which  certain  proceedings 
were  taken  as  recorded  in  the  minutes  of  said  Judicatory, 
which  minutes  are  hereby  referred  to  as  a  part  of  the 
record  of  the  proceedings  in  this  case,  which  culminated 
in  the  decision  and  final  Judgment  from  which  this 
Appeal  is  taken. 

On  the  9th  day  of  January,  1893,  a  committee  consist- 
ing of  the  Rev.  George  Alexander,  D.  D.,  the  Rev.  Henry 
Yan  Dyke,  D.  D.  and  Elder  Robert  Jaffray,  appointed  to 
bring  in  a  minute  to  express  the  action  of  the  said  Judi- 
catory, made  its  report,  which  was  adopted  by  the 
Judicatory,  and  the  said  Presbytery,  sitting  in  a  judicial 
capacity,  made  and  entered  its  decision  and  final  judg- 
ment in  this  case,  in  the  following  words,  to  wit : 

Final  Judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York. 

"The  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  against  the  Reverend  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
D.  D.,  having  been  dismissed  by  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  on  November  4th,  1891,  was  remanded  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  1892  to  the  same  Presbytery,  with  instruc- 
tions that  'it  be  brought  to  issue  and  tried  on  the  merits 
thereof  as  speedily  as  possible.' ' ' 


21 

"In  obedience  to  this  mandate  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  has  tried  the  case.  It  has  listened  to  the  evidence 
and  argument  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution,  acting  in 
fidelity  to  the  duty  committed  to  them.  It  has  heard  the 
defense  and  evidence  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  pre- 
sented in  accordance  with  the  rights  secured  to  every 
minister  of  the  church. 

"  The  Presbytery  has  kept  in  mind  these  established  prin- 
ciples of  our  polity,  '  that  no  man  can  rightly  be  convicted 
of  heresy  by  inference  or  implication ' ;  that  '  in  the  in- 
terpretation of  ambiguous  expressions  candor  requires 
that  a  court  should  favor  the  accused  by  putting  upon  his 
words  the  more  favorable  rather  than  the  less  favorable 
construction,'  and  'there  are  truths  and  forms  with  re- 
spect to  which  men  of  good  character  may  differ.' 

"  Giving  due  consideration  to  the  defendant's  explana- 
tion of  the  language  used  in  his  Inaugural  Address, 
accepting  his  frank  and  full  disclaimer  of  the  interpreta- 
tion which  has  been  put  upon  some  of  its  phrases  and 
illustrations,  crediting  his  affirmations  of  loyalty  to  the 
Standards  of  the  church  and  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the 
only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  the  Presbytery 
does  not  find  that  he  has  transgressed  the  limits  of  liberty 
allowed  under  our  Constitution  to  scholarship  and 
opinion. 

"Therefore,  without  expressing  approval  of  the  critical 
or  theological  views  embodied  in  the  Inaugural  Address 
or  the  manner  in  which  they  have  been  expressed  and 
illustrated,  the  Presbytery  pronounces  the  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  fully  acquitted  of  the  offences  alleged 
against  him,  the  several  charges  and  specifications  ac- 
cepted for  probation  having  been  '  not  sustained '  by  the 
following  vote : 


?y  0?  TV  ^ 


22 


SUSTAINBD. 

NOT 
SUSTAINED. 

« 
1 

EH 

05 

d 

| 
H 

H 

W 

CO 

H 

a 

H 

M 

<< 

H 

W 

■4 

S5 

A 

EH 

■ 

A 

H 

M 

3 

o 

H 

a 

O 

s 

H 

P 

m 

55 

15 

H 

'1  Specification, 

41 

17 

58 

70 

L^ 

2 

42 

17 

59 

54 

15 

69 

Charge    {*      ;    ; 

42 
42 

17 

17 

59 
59 

54 
54 

15 

15 

69 
69 

1  Specification, 

39 

16 

55 

56 

16 

72 

II.- 

2 

39 

16 

55 

56 

16 

72 

Charge    jf       ;     ; 

39 

16 

55 

56 

16 

72 

39 

16 

55 

56 

16 

72 

'  Specification,     .    . 

44 

17 

61 

52 

15 

67 

III.- 

(a       .     . 

44 

17 

61 

52 

15 

67 

Charge    <  b       .    . 

42 

17 

59 

54 

15 

69 

L         \c    .  . 

44 

17 

61 

52 

15 

67 

( Specification,     .    . 

39 

15 

54 

55 

17 

72 

IV-j  Charge    {£      ;    ; 

39 
39 

15 
15 

54 
54 

55 
55 

17 
17 

72 
72 

( Specification,     .     . 

35 

14 

49 

57 

16 

73 

Y'j  Charge    |£       '    '• 

35 

14 

49 

57 

16 

73 

35 

14 

49 

57 

16 

73 

mj  i  Specification,     .     . 
V1-  (Charge,     .... 

41 

16 

57 

55 

14 

69 

41 

16 

57 

55 

14 

69 

"Accordingly,  the  Presbytery,  making  full  recognition 
of  the  ability,  sincerity  and  patience  with  which  the  Com- 
mittee of  Prosecution  have  performed  the  onerous  duty 
assigned  them,  does  now,  to  the  extent  of  its  consti- 
tutional power,  relieve  said  Committee  from  further 
responsibility  in  connection  with  this  case.  In  so  doing, 
the  Presbytery  is  not  undertaking  to  decide  how  far  that 
Committee  is  subject  to  the  authority  of  the  body  appoint- 
ing it,  but  intends  by  this  action  to  express  an  earnest  con- 


23 

viction  that  the  grave  issues  involved  in  this  case  will  be 
more  wisely  and  justly  determined  by  calm  investigation 
and  fraternal  discussion  than  by  judicial  arraignment 
and  process. 

"In  view  of  the  present  disquietude  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  of  the  obligation  resting  upon  all  Christians 
to  walk  in  charity  and  to  have  tender  concern  for  the  con- 
sciences of  their  brethren,  the  Presbytery  earnestly 
counsels  its  members  to  avoid  on  the  one  hand  hasty  or 
over- confident  statement  of  private  opinion  on  points  con- 
cerning which  profound  and  reverent  students  of  God's 
word  are  not  yet  agreed,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  suspicions 
and  charges  of  false  teaching  which  are  not  clearly 
capable  of  proof. 

"Moreover,  the  Presbytery  advises  and  exhorts  all  sub- 
ject to  its  authority  to  regard  the  many  and  great  things 
in  which  we  agree  rather  than  the  few  and  minor  things 
in  which  we  differ;  and,  turning  from  the  paths  of  con- 
troversy, to  devote  their  energies  to  the  great  and  urgent 
work  of  the  Church,  which  is  the  proclamation  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  edifying  of  the  Body  of  Christ." 

From  the  aforesaid  action,  decision  and  final  judgment 
of  the  said  Presbytery  of  New  York,  sitting  in  a  judicial 
capacity,  taken  on  the  ninth  day  of  January,  1893,  being 
the  final  judgment  of  the  said  Presbytery  in  the  case  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  T>.  D.,  in  behalf  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  we, 
the  undersigned,  the  Prosecuting  Committee  in  the  said 
case,  do  hereby  appeal  to  your  Venerable  Body,  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
Sections  94  to  102,  inclusive,  of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

Under  the  provisions  of  Section  IV.  of  Chapter  XI.  of  the 
Form  of  Government  of  said  Presbyterian  Church,  the 
decision  of  a  Synod  on  an  Appeal  which  affects  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church,  is  not  final. 

Section  V.  of  Chapter  XII.  of  the  said  Form  of  Govern- 
ment devolves  upon  the  General  Assembly  "the  power  of 


24 

deciding  in  all  controversies  respecting  doctrine  and  disci- 
pline ;  of  reproving,  warning,  or  bearing  testimony  against 
error  in  doctrine  *  *  *  in  any  church,  presbytery  or 
synod." 

Section  IV.  of  the  same  Chapter  provides  that  "The 
General  Assembly  shall  receive  and  issue  all  Appeals 
*  *  *  that  affect  the  doctrine  or  constitution  of  the 
Church,  which  may  be  regularly  brought  before  them 
from  the  inferior  judicatories." 

Under  these  Sections  of  the  Form  of  Government  and 
Section  102  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  the  Appeal  from 
the  former  Judgment  dismissing  this  case  was  taken  by 
the  Prosecuting  Committee,  in  behalf  of  the  said  Presby- 
terian Church,  directly  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  York 
to  the  General  Assembly.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the 
Church,  after  full  discussion,  assumed  jurisdiction  of  the 
case,  entertained  the  Appeal,  and,  after  further  full  argu- 
ment, sustained  the  same. 

The  General  Assembly,  in  reversing  the  former  Judg- 
ment of  the  Presbytery,  directed  that  the  case  should  be 
tried  upon  its  merits  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  and 
from  the  result  of  that  trial  it  is  proper  that  the  Appeal 
should  be  made  directly  to  the  higher  Judicatory,  which 
has  already  entertained  jurisdiction  of  the  case. 

The  status  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  as  represent- 
ing the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  as  an  original  party,  under  Sections  10  and  11 
of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  having  been  sustained  by  the 
General  Assembly  of  1892,  the  Committee  is  charged  with 
conducting  the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages,  in  whatever 
Judicatory,  until  the  final  issue  be  reached. 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  cannot  accept  the  decision 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  as  final,  and  not  take  an 
appeal  therefrom,  inasmuch  as  it  would  thereby  assume 
the  responsibility  of  acting  for  the  entire  Church  and 
would  surrender  the  Church' s  rights  and  the  only  oppor- 
tunity of  securing  a  final  determination,  by  the  General 
Assembly,  of  the  questions  at  issue  which  involve  most 
important  and  fundamental  doctrines. 


25 

As  the  Book  of  Discipline,  Section  96,  provides  that 
written  Notice  of  Appeal,  with  the  specifications  of  the 
errors  alleged,  shall  be  given  within  ten  days  after  the 
Judgment  has  been  rendered,  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
must  act  promptly,  and  without  being  able  to  obtain  in 
advance  the  instruction  or  wishes  of  the  only  body  repre- 
senting the  entire  Church,  namely,  the  General  Assembly. 

If  the  action  of  the  Committee  in  taking  this  Appeal 
does  not  commend  itself  to  the  court  of  last  resort  it 
need  not  be  entertained,  and  the  Appeal  can  be  dismissed 
without  prejudice  to  any  interest. 

Under  ordinary  conditions  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
would  have  taken  this  Appeal  to  the  Synod  of  New 
York,  but  it  does  not  appear  to  be  best  to  do  so  in 
this  exceptional  case  for  the  following  reasons : 

1.  To  secure  the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  Church  it  is 
essential  that  a  final  determination  of  the  fundamental 
and  important  questions  involved  should  be  reached  by 
the  Court  of  last  resort  at  the  earliest  practicable  date. 

2.  As  this  case  involves  doctrine,  it  must  be  finally  de- 
termined by  the  General  Assembly.  The  delay  in 
reaching  an  ultimate  decision  through  an  appeal  by  way 
of  the  Synod  could  not  be  less  than  a  year,  during  which 
the  character  of  instruction  given  our  candidates  for  the 
gospel  ministry  might  be  unfavorably  affected.  By  se- 
curing the  speedy  decision  of  the  Court  of  last  resort  in 
this  case,  neither  the  rights  nor  the  interests  of  any  indi- 
vidual would  suffer. 

3.  If  the  Appeal  should  go  to  the  Synod  of  New  York 
and  be  passed  upon  by  that  Judicatory,  when  the  case 
reaches  the  General  Assembly  by  appeal  from  the  de- 
cision of  the  Synod,  all  of  the  Presbyteries  constituting 
that  Synod  would  be  excluded  from  representation  in 
the  final  determination  of  these  important  questions. 
If  the  Appeal  goes  directly  to  the  Assembly,  the  Com- 
missioners from  only  one  Presbytery  in  the  entire  Church 
would  be  excluded  from  sitting,  deliberating  and  voting 
in  the  final  decision.  In  the  Synod  of  New  York  there 
are  thirty-two  Presbyteries,  nearly  fifteen  per  cent,  of  the 


26 

whole  number  of  Presbyteries  in  the  Church.  Inas- 
much as  all  these  Presbyteries,  excepting  one,  would  be 
fully  represented  and  heard  in  the  General  Assembly, 
and  the  General  Assembly  alone  can  give  a  final  decision, 
we  believe  the  time  and  the  interests  of  the  Synod  of 
New  York  will  be  best  conserved  if  the  Assembly  should 
entertain  the  Appeal  according  to  the  Committee's  request. 
This  important  consideration  of  having  these  questions 
finally  determined  by  the  representatives  of  substantially 
the  entire  Church,  apart  from  the  other  reasons  above 
mentioned,  would  seem  to  require,  in  the  interest  of  fair- 
ness and  justice  to  all  concerned,  that  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  should  take  an  Appeal  directly  to  the  General 
Assembly,  and  that  the  General  Assembly  should  enter- 
tain said  Appeal. 
The  grounds  of  this  appeal  are  as  follows  : 

FIRST  GROUND  OF  APPEAL. 

Ireegulaeity  in  the  Peoceedings  of  said 

Peesbyteey  of  New  Yoek. 

(Section  95,  Book  of  Discipline.) 

SPECIFICATION  FIRST. 

In  this,  that  in  consideration  of  objections  offered 
by  the  accused  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  sitting  in  a 
judicial  capacity,  required  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
to  amend  the  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications  sub- 
mitted to  said  Presbytery  on  the  9th  day  of  November, 
1892,  by  striking  out  Charge  IV.,  said  Charge  IV.  being 
in  substance  an  essential  part  of  the  original  Charges 
and  Specifications  in  the  case  sent  down  by  the  last  Gen- 
eral Assembly  to  the  said  Presbytery,  with  instructions 
that  the  said  case  be  brought  to  issue  and  tried  on  the 
merits  thereof. 

SPECIFICATION  SECOND. 

In  this,  that  in  consideration  of  objections  offered 
by  the  accused  the  said  Presbytery  required  the  said 
Prosecuting  Committee  to  amend  the  Amended  Charges 


27 

and  Specifications  by  striking  out  Charge  VII.  ;  said 
Charge  VII.  being  in  substance  an  essential  part  of  the 
original  Charges  and  Specifications  in  the  case  sent  down 
by  the  last  General  Assembly  to  the  said  Presbytery, 
with  instructions  that  the  said  case  be  brought  to  issue 
and  tried  on  the  merits  thereof. 

SPECIFICATION  THIRD. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery,  before  proceeding  to 
trial,  directed  the  transference  of  the  proofs  cited  by 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  from  the  Scriptures,  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  the  Catechisms,  to  sustain  the  several 
Specifications,  from  the  Specifications  to  the  Charges,  by 
the  following  action,  to  wit:  "Without  sustaining  the 
general  objection  to  the  relevancy  of  the  proofs  from 
the  Scriptures,  Catechisms  and  Confession,  the  Presby- 
tery directs  the  transference  of  these  proofs  from  the 
Specifications  to  the  Charges." 

SPECIFICATION  FOURTH. 

In  this,  that  the  Moderator  of  the  Presbytery,  the  Rev. 
John  C.  Bliss,  D.  D.,  without  submitting  the  question  to 
the  Judicatory,  ruled  that  the  Rev.  Joseph  J.  Lampe, 
D.  D.,  speaking  as  a  member  of  the  Prosecuting  Commit- 
tee, introduced  new  matter  in  his  argument  in  reply  to  the 
argument  of  the  accused,  and  without  specifying  the  al- 
leged new  matter,  the  Presbytery,  after  the  close  of  the 
argument  of  the  said  Rev.  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  D.  D.,  on 
behalf  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  took  the  following 
action,  to  wit : 

"Resolved,  that  the  Presbytery  now  give  the  defend- 
ant an  opportunity  to  reply." 

SPECIFICATION  FIFTH. 

In  this,  that  by  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator,  re- 
ferred to  in  Specification  Fourth,  the  said  Prosecuting 
Committee  were  refused  the  opportunity  to  close  the  case, 
contrary  to  the  practice  and  precedents  in  such  cases  in 
the  Judicatories  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America. 


28 

SPECIFICATION  SIXTH. 

In  this,  that,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  said  Dr. 
Briggs  declined  to  be  sworn  as  a  witness  when  called 
upon,  the  said  Presbytery  accepted  statements  or  ex- 
planations of  the  language  used  by  the  said  accused,  or 
disclaimers  on  the  part  of  the  said  accused,  and  gave  to 
said  statements,  explanations  or  disclaimers  in  the  final 
judgment  of  the  said  Presbytery,  the  force  of  such  sworn, 
approbated  and  subscribed  testimony,  as  is  described  or 
referred  to  in  Sections  61  and  62  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline. 

SPECIFICATION  SEVENTH. 

In  this,  that  there  was  placed  upon  or  in  the  Official 
Stenographic  Report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  said  Judi- 
catory, of  December  5th,  1892,  as  furnished  to  the  parties 
by  the  Stenographer,  beginning  at  the  last  line  on  page  448 
(erased  page  No.  461)  to  a  point  below  the  middle  of  page 
468  (erased  page  No.  481),  about  twenty  pages,  which  said 
twenty  pages  contain  words  and  matter  which  were  not 
spoken  upon  the  floor  of  the  Presbytery,  and,  as  is  stated 
by  the  Stenographer,  were  introduced  into  the  Steno- 
graphic Report  upon  the  request  or  suggestion  of  Prof. 
Briggs,  with  the  approval  of  the  Moderator,  and  after  it 
had  been  announced  to  the  Judicatory  that  both  of  the 
parties  had  fully  presented  their  evidence,  and  after  the 
argument  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  had  been  begun. 

SPECIFICATION  EIGHTH. 

In  this,  that  there  was  placed  upon  or  in  the  Official 
Stenographic  Report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  said 
Judicatory,  beginning  at  page  468  of  said  Official  Steno- 
graphic Report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  said  Presby- 
tery, held  on  Monday,  December  5th,  1892,  fifteen  or  more 
additional  printed  sheets,  which  said  fifteen  or  more 
additional  printed  sheets  contain  words  and  matter  which 
were  not  spoken  upon  the  floor  of  the  Presbytery,  and 
were  introduced  by  the  Stenographer  into  the  official 
Stenographic  Report  of  the  proceedings,  as  said  Steno- 
graphic Report  of  December  6,  1892  shows,  (page  578), 


29 

upon  the  request  or  suggestion  of  Prof.  Briggs  and  by 
direction  of  the  Moderator,  and  after  it  had  been  an- 
nounced to  the  Judicatory  that  both  of  the  parties  had 
fully  presented  their  evidence,  and  after  the  argument 
of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  had  been  begun. 

SPECIFICATION  NINTH. 

In  this,  that  the  request  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
that  such  part  of  the  Stenographic  Report  described  and 
referred  to  in  Specifications  Seventh  and  Eighth  as  twenty 
pages  and  fifteen  or  more  additional  printed  sheets, 
respectively,  should  be  stricken  out  and  that  the  accused 
should  not  be  permitted  to  refer  to  or  use  any  portion  of 
such  matter,  or  the  books  or  documents  therein  referred 
to,  as  evidence  upon  the  trial,  was  refused  by  the  said 
Judicatory,  and  in  this,  that  the  record  of  said  request 
was  stricken  from  the  Minutes  of  the  said  Presbytery. 
(See  Records  of  the  New  York  Presbytery,  Vol.  14,  pp. 
395,  396.) 

SPECIFICATION  TENTH. 

In  this,  that  after  the  Prosecuting  Committee  had  ob- 
jected to  the  insertion  into  the  Official  Stenographer's 
Report  of  certain  words  and  matter,said  matter  being  upon 
about  twenty  pages  of  the  Stenographer's  notes,  and 
fifteen  or  more  printed  sheets  being  the  pages  and  printed 
sheets  referred  to  in  Specification  Seventh  and  Eighth, 
which  said  words  and  matter  were  not  spoken  on  the 
floor  of  the  Presbytery,  and  after  the  said  Prosecuting 
Committee  had  requested  that  the  said  twenty  pages  and 
the  said  fifteen  or  more  printed  sheets  should  be  stricken 
out,  and  that  the  accused  should  not  be  permitted  to  refer 
to  or  to  use  any  portion  of  such  matter  or  the  books  or 
documents  therein  referred  to,  as  evidence  upon  the  trial, 
and  in  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery,  while  retaining  as 
a  part  of  the  Stenographer's  Report,  the  said  twenty 
pages  and  the  said  fifteen  or  more  printed  sheets,  voted 
to  strike  out  of  the  Minutes  the  said  record  of  the  request 
of  the  said  Prosecuting  Committee. 


30 

SPECIFICATION  ELEVENTH. 

In  this,  that  when  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  said 
Charges  and  Specifications,  the  said  Presbytery  refused 
to  permit  any  of  the  members  of  the  said  Judicatory  to 
vote,  to  "  Sustain  in  part,"  contrary  to  the  precedents  and 
practice  of  the  judicial  procedure  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

SPECIFICATION  TWELFTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  required  that  each 
item  in  Charges  L,  II.,  III.,  V.  and  VI.  should  be  voted 
upon  separately,  thereby  implying  and  proceeding  upon 
the  theory,  which  was  not  warranted  by  the  facts,  that 
each  of  said  Charges  contained  more  than  one  offence. 
(See  Records  of  the  New  York  Presbytery,  Vol.  14, 
p.  368.) 

SECOND  GROUND  OF  APPEAL. 

Receiving  Improper  Testimony. 

(Section  95,  Book  of  Discipline.) 

SPECIFICATION  FIRST. 

In  this,  that  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  said 
accused  declined  to  be  sworn  as  a  witness  when  called 
upon,  the  said  Presbytery  accepted  statements  or  ex- 
planations of  the  language  used  by  the  said  accused  or  dis- 
claimers on  the  part  of  the  said  accused  and  gave  to  said 
statements,  explanations  or  disclaimers,  in  the  final  judg- 
ment of  the  said  Presbytery,  the  force  of  such  sworn,  ap- 
probated and  subscribed  testimony  as  is  described  or 
referred  to  in  Sections  61  and  62  of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

SPECIFICATION  SECOND. 

In  this,  that  the  Moderator,  at  the  request  of  the  said 
accused,  instructed  the  Stenographer,  as  appears  by  page 
578  of  the  Stenographer's  Report  of  the  proceedings  of 
December  6th,  1892,  to  insert,  beginning  at  the  last  line 
on  page  448  (erased  page  No.  461),  to  a  point  below  the 
middle  of  page  468  (erased  page  No.  481)  of  the  Official 


31 

Stenographer's  Report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Judica- 
tory at  its  session  on  Monday,  December  5th,  about 
twenty  pages  of  stenographic  notes,  and  also  fifteen  or 
more  additional  printed  sheets  beginning  at  page  468  of 
the  Official  Stenographic  Report,  the  statements  and 
matter  contained  in  the  said  twenty  pages  of  said  Steno- 
grapher5 s  notes,  and  in  the  said  fifteen  or  more  additional 
printed  sheets,  being  matter  or  statements  which  were 
not  spoken  upon  the  floor  of  the  Presbytery,  and  which 
were  permitted  to  remain  as  a  part  of  the  Stenographer's 
Official  Report  and  were  received  by  the  said  Judicatory 
as  competent  evidence. 

SPECIFICATION  THIRD. 

In  this,  that  the  Presbytery  admitted  as  lawful  and 
competent  testimony  any  part  of  the  quotations  made  by 
the  accused,  in  so  far  as  they  were  writings  or  extracts 
from  the  writings  of  the  said  accused,  without  his  having 
first  taken  the  oath  or  affirmation  required  by  Section  61 
of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 


THIRD  GROUND  OF  APPEAL. 

Declining  to  Receive  Important  Testimony. 
(Section  95,  Book  of  Discipline.) 

SPECIFICATION  FIRST. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  instructed  the  said 
Prosecuting  Committee  to  strike  out  Amended  Charge 
IV.,  thereby  declining  to  permit  the  said  Committee  to 
prove  said  Charge  IV.  by  competent  evidence. 

SPECIFICATION  SECOND. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  instructed  the  said 
Prosecuting  Committee  to  strike  out  Amended  Charge 
VII.,  thereby  declining  to  permit  the  said  Committee  to 
prove  said  Charge  VII.  by  competent  evidence. 


32 


FOURTH  GROUND  OF  APPEAL. 

Manifestation  of  Prejudice  in  the  Conduct 
of  the  Case. 

(Section  95,  Book  of  Discipline.) 

SPECIFICATION  FIRST. 

In  this,  that  several  members,  hereinafter  named,  of 
the  said  Presbytery,  sitting  in  a  judicial  capacity,  who 
afterwards  voted  not  to  sustain  each  and  every  one  of  the 
Specifications  and  Charges,  made  statements  upon  the  floor 
of  the  Presbytery,  respectively,  as  hereinafter  set  forth, 
to  wit : 

Rev.  George  Alexander,  D.  D.,  said  : 

"What  seems  to  me  strange,  Mr.  Moderator,  is  that 
one  of  Dr.  Shedd's  acknowledged  logical  faculty  should 
be  so  blind  to  the  distinction  that  ought  to  be  made. 
I  could  adopt  as  my  own  every  word  of  that  which  he 
quoted  from  Dr.  Briggs,  and  I  am  not  a  Restorationist. 
The  Lord  has  done  great  things  for  me  whereof  I  am  glad, 
and  I  confidently  believe  that  he  is  going  to  do  a  great 
deal  more  for  me  hereafter.  But  that  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  question  as  to  whether  Dr.  Briggs  holds  that 
there  is  redemption  in  the  world  to  come  for  those  who 
die  in  sin.  The  difficulty  is,  that  this  Charge  imputes  to 
Dr.  Briggs  views  which  he  distinctly  says  he  does  not 
hold."  *  *  *  ' '  When  Dr.  Briggs  intimated  a  suspicion 
that  the  Prosecuting  Committee  might  be  holding  back  de- 
liberately with  testimony  or  evidence  in  order  to  crush  him 
with  it  after  the  opportunity  for  response  had  gone  by, 
I  resented  that  suspicion,  and  if  it  had  been  in  order  I 
should  have  risen  in  my  place  and  asked  him  to  with- 
draw those  words  because  it  seemed  to  me  an  unworthy 
suspicion.  Now,  that  the  suspicion  seems  to  be  justified 
by  the  event,  I  am  at  a  loss  what  to  say.  I  am  puzzled 
and  distressed.  The  members  of  this  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee are  my  personal  friends ;  I  cannot  believe  that 
there  is  one  of  them  that  would  consciously  do  an  in- 


33 

justice.  I  won' t  believe  it,  but  I  cannot  shrink  from  the 
fact  that  a  wrong  has  been  done  in  some  way  and  the 
more  I  think  of  it  and  the  more  I  think  of  the  defendant, 
from  whom  I  differ  so  widely,  worn  out  and  weak  and  suf- 
fering from  this  terrific  strain,  required  now  to  meet  this 
fresh  assault — why,  the  more  every  drop  of  Anglo-Saxon 
blood  in  me  protests  against  it.  We  cannot  remedy  the 
wrong.  All  that  we  can  do  is  to  give  the  defendant,  if 
he  desires  it  (I  hope  he  will  not  desire  it),  an  opportunity 
to  meet  this  fresh  evidence  and  this  fresh  argument ; 
giving  him  reasonable  time  to  prepare  his  defense,  and,  if 
need  be,  giving  the  prosecution  the  last  word.  I  should 
not  object  to  that  at  all.  But,  having  spent  so  much  time, 
we  cannot  afford  to  seem,  even,  to  do  an  injustice  to  any 
one." 

Rev.  Antonio  Arreghi,  said  : 

11  An  engagement  made  long  before  this  Court,  and  made 
out  of  fidelity  to  my  work,  renders  it  impossible  for  me 
to  attend  at  the  sessions  of  this  Court  to-morrow  and  the 
day  after.  I  therefore  ask  the  unanimous  consent  of 
the  House  to  excuse  me  for  those  two  days.  It  seems  to 
me  a  great  injustice  because  I  have  an  engagement, 
over  which  I  have  no  control  in  the  least,  and  if  I 
am  not  enrolled,  it  deprives  me  of  the  right  to  vote  on 
this  trial.  I  may  say  right  here  that  it  is  well  known  by 
the  Brethren  on  which  side  of  the  House  each  man  stands 
on  this  floor."     [Cries  of  No  !  no  !]. 

Rev.  Henry  M.  Field,  D.D.,  said  : 

"  I  wish  at  the  beginning  of  this  trial  we  might  have 
one  vote  that  could  be  unanimous.  We  are  all  anxious 
to  hurry  on  this  matter  as  much  as  possible.  I  believe 
our  excellent  friends  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  would 
be  very  glad  if  this  Presbytery  would  relieve  them  of  the 
necessity  of  pressing  these  two  portions  of  their  Charges. 
Let  us  be  unanimous.  I  do  not  think  Col.  McCook  would 
be  at  all  sorry  to  have  these  two  Charges  stricken  out. 
There  are  enough  Charges  left  any  way  to  sink  a  ship. 
Let  us  go  to  trial  on  them  and,  if  possible,  unite  in  this 


34 

first  disposal  of  these  two  Charges,  which  will  be  a  most 
happy  and  auspicious  omen  for  all  the  rest." 

Rev.  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  D.D.,  said : 

"The  change  is  radical,  in  my  judgment,  between  this 
amended  Charge  IV.  and  what  was  in  the  former  Charges. 
It  gives  the  lie  direct.  That  is  the  plain  English  of  it 
and  there  is  no  getting  around  that  by  any  casuist.  Dr. 
Briggs  has  told  this  Presbytery  that  he  does  not  hold 
such  views,  and  in  his  demurrer  he  has  reiterated  it. 
Now,  to  bring  before  such  a  body  as  this  a  Charge  to  try 
a  man  upon,  assuming  that  it  is  doctrinal,  when  it  is 
really  moral — being  a  question  whether  he  lies  or  not — is 
certainly  a  very  serious  and  a  very  radical  change.  *  * 
*  *  I  said  that  the  charge  does  give  him  the  lie  direct 
and  I  adhere  to  it.  I  did  not  say,  however,  that  the  Com- 
mittee called  Dr.  Briggs  a  liar.  *  *  *  And  I  take  it  that 
he  himself  is  to  be  accepted  as  an  authority  as  to  what  he 
meant  in  that  Inaugural  Address  and  in  anything  else 
that  he  has  said  or  published,  and  what  has  seemed  to  me 
extremely  unfair  and  ungenerous  on  the  part  of  some  is 
the  persistent  effort  to  read  into  his  language  what  he 
says  distinctly  was  not  in  his  mind  and  was  not  his  inten- 
tion. A  man  must  be  his  own  interpreter,  and,  as  I 
understand  it,  Dr.  Briggs  is  before  this  body  saying  that 
he  intended  no  such  thing  as  is  charged  against  him. 
When  a  man  says  that  about  a  charge,  it  seems  to  me 
that  it  is  utterly  out  of  character  and  out  of  keeping  for 
the  Presbytery  to  insist  upon  that  Charge.  Accept  the 
man's  disclaimer  and  denial  and  let  the  Charge  be  with- 
drawn." 

Rev.  Henry  Van  Dyke,  D.D.,  said : 

"  I  can  very  readily  specify  some  new  matter  that  has 
been  introduced.  It  is  quite  evident  that  new  matter  has 
been  introduced  [cries  of  "  No  !  no  ! "].  Those  who  do  not 
yet  see  it  will  see  it  when  the  Court  comes  to  vote  upon  it. 
So  it  is  simply  a  matter  of  fairness  and  justice  that  we 
should  allow  the  defendant,  if  he  wishes  it,  to  reply.  It 
would  be  an  unheard  of  thing  in  any  civil  Court  that  a 
prosecution  should  be  allowed  to  traverse  new  ground 


35 

and  that  the  accused  should  not  be  allowed  to  be  heard 
or  to  offer  evidence  in  rebuttal.  It  is  a  thing  to  cause  the 
blood  of  an  Anglo-Saxon  to  boil  within  him,  every  drop 
of  it,  too.  Moreover,  Mr.  Moderator,  it  is  not  simply  that 
new  matter  has  been  introduced,  but  that  statements 
which  have  been  made  by  the  defendant  again  and  again 
upon  this  floor  in  respect  to  doctrines  which  he  rejects, 
have  been  again  attributed  to  him.  And  I  maintain 
that  it  is  simply  a  matter  of  fairness  and  candor  that 
we  should  make  this  offer  to  Dr.  Briggs,  whether  he 
will  accept  it  or  not,  for  the  sake  of  the  honor  of  this 
House  and  in  the  way  of  decency." 

SPECIFICATION  SECOND. 

In  this,  that  while  the  said  Presbytery  in  obedience  to 
the  mandate  of  the  last  General  Assembly  has  issued  and 
tried  the  case,  it  has  not  tried  it  fully  on  the  merits 
thereof,  as  is  evinced  by  the  striking  out  of  Charges  IV. 
and  VII.  of  the  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications. 

SPECIFICATION  THIRD. 

In  this,  that  said  Presbytery,  in  said  final  judgment, 
by  attempting  to  relieve  the  said  Prosecuting  Committee 
from  further  responsibility  in  connection  with  this  case 
appears  to  hinder  and  prevent  the  attainment  of  the  ends 
of  discipline,  apparently  aiming  to  now  terminate  the 
said  case,  and  thus  secure  the  same  result  that  the  said 
Presbytery  attempted  to  reach  on  November  4th,  A.  D. 
1891,  by  voting  to  dismiss  the  said  case. 

SPECIFICATION  FOURTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery,  in  said  final  judgment, 
expresses  "an  earnest  conviction  that  the  grave  issues 
involved  in  this  case  will  be  more  wisely  and  justly  deter- 
mined by  calm  investigation  and  fraternal  discussion  than 
by  judicial  arraignment  and  process,"  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  the  General  Assembly  directed  the  case  to 
be  tried  on  the  merits  thereof  and  thereby  expressed  a 
no  less  earnest  conviction  that  the  grave  issues  involved 


36 

should    be    determined    by    judicial    arraignment    and 
process. 

SPECIFICATION  FIFTH. 

In  this,  that  sundry  members  of  the  said  Presbytery, 
to  wit :  Rev.  Francis  Brown,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Henry  M. 
Field,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  D.  D.,  Rev.  J. 
Hall  Mcllvaine,  D.  D.,  and  Rev.  Henry  Van  Dyke,  D.  D., 
sat  and  deliberated  in  the  trial  of  this  case  and  voted  to 
acquit  the  said  accused,  upon  each  and  every  specifica- 
cation  and  charge,  after  manifestations  of  prejudice  in  the 
conduct  of  the  case,  on  the  part  of  the  said  members  was 
charged  in  the  appeal  to  and  sustained  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  1892. 

SPECIFICATION  SIXTH. 

In  this,  that  sundry  Directors,  Officers  and  Professors 
of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  to  wit:  Rev.  Francis 
Brown,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Edward  L.  Clark,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Charles 
R.  Gillett,  D.D.,  Rev.  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  D.D.,  Rev.  J. 
Hall  Mcllvaine,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Philip  Schaff,  D.  D.,  Rev. 
W.  M.  Smith,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  D.  D., 
and  William  A.  Wheelock,  Esq.,  sat  and  deliberated  in 
the  said  trial  and  voted  to  acquit  the  said  accused  upon 
each  and  every  specification  and  charge,  said  Directors, 
Officers  and  Professors  having  previously  approved  and 
published  the  said  Inaugural  Address,  as  appears  in 
the  first  edition  which  bears  the  imprint :  "  Printed  for 
The  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York,  1891," 
"Copyright,  1891,  by  The  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary," and  as  also  appears  in  the  second  edition  of  said 
Inaugural  Address,  which  was  also  "  Copyright,  1891,  by 
The  Union  Theological  Seminary,"  which  said  Inaugural 
Address  contained  the  alleged  erroneous  doctrines  for  the 
holding  and  publishing  of  which  doctrines  the  accused 
was  then  on  trial. 

FIFTH  GROUND  OF  APPEAL. 
Mistake  ok  Injustice  in  the  Decision. 
specification  first. 
In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  having  declared'the 


37 

said  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications  sufficient  in 
form  and  legal  effect  and  the  said  accused  having  repeat- 
edly admitted  the  facts  as  set  forth  in  the  said  several 
Specifications,  the  said  Presbytery  was  inconsistent  and 
erred  in  not  accepting  the  said  admissions  of  the  said  ac- 
cused and  in  not  sustaining  the  said  Charges  as  its  final 
judgment. 

SPECIFICATION  SECOND. 

In  this,  that  the  said  final  judgment  of  the  said  Pres- 
bytery was  not  warranted  by  the  law  and  the  evidence, 
because  the  Court  had  decided  that  the  Charges  were  suf- 
ficient in  form  and  legal  effect ;  that  is,  it  had  already 
substantially  determined  that  if  the  accused  had  taught 
the  doctrine  with  which  he  was  charged,  he  was  guilty 
of  an  offence.  The  several  Charges  alleged  an  offence 
and  the  several  allegations  were  proved  by  extracts 
from  the  Inaugural  Address  cited  in  the  several  Specifica- 
tions, and  said  extracts  were  admitted  as  authentical  by 
the  accused,  and  were  not  retracted  by  him.  The  proof 
was  therefore  complete.  Said  accused  also  introduced  his 
own  writings  as  evidence,  which  writings,  so  introduced, 
contained  the  extracts  recited  by  the  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee in  the  several  Specifications.  If  the  accused  had 
brought  evidence  to  show  that  he  had  made  no  such  utter- 
ances as  were  contained  in  the  specifications,  then  and 
then  only  should  he  have  been  "fully  acquitted."  The 
indictment  had  been  found  in  order.  The  evidence  was 
unchallenged  and  the  judgment  should  have  been  "guilty 
as  charged." 

SPECIFICATION  THIRD. 

In  this,  that  the  said  final  judgment  of  the  said  Presby- 
tery, which  disclaims  to  be  an  expression  of  the  approval 
of  the  critical  or  theological  views  embodied  in  the  said 
Inaugural  Address,  is,  in  fact,  an  approval  of  said  critical 
or  theological  views  and  will  have  the  effect  of  encourag- 
ing the  dissemination  of  said  views  and  will  further 
increase  the  present  disquietude  in  the  said  Presbyterian 
Church  and  practically  sets  at  naught  the  declaration 


of  the  General  Assembly  of  1892,  as  found  on  page  179 
of  its  Minutes,  in  which  said  General  Assembly  "re- 
minds all  under  its  care  that  it  is  a  fundamental  doctrine 
that  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  inspired  and 
infallible  word  of  God,"  and  that  "our  Church  holds 
that  the  inspired  Word,  as  it  came  from  God,  is  without 
error.  The  assertion  of  the  contrary  cannot  but  shake 
the  confidence  of  the  people  in  the  sacred  Books.' ' 

SPECIFICATION  FOURTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  final  judgment  is  vague  and  un- 
certain, inasmuch  as  said  judgment  gives  due  considera- 
tion to  the  defendant's  explanation  of  the  language  used 
in  his  Inaugural  Address  and  accepts  his  disclaimer  of 
the  interpretation  which  has  been  put  upon  some  of 
its  phrases  and  illustrations,  but  does  not  specify  which 
explanations,  phrases  or  illustrations,  or  whether  such  ex- 
planations or  disclaimers  relate  to  the  portions  of  the 
said  Inaugural  Address  upon  which  the  Charges  and 
Specifications  are  based,  and  the  said  judgment  is  also 
vague  and  uncertain  in  the  statement  that  the  said 
accused  has  not  transgressed  the  limits  of  liberty  allowed 
under  our  Constitution  to  scholarship  and  opinion. 

SPECIFICATION  FIFTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  final  judgment  is  based  wholly, 
or  in  part,  on  the  affirmation  of  loyalty  made  by  the 
said  defendant  to  the  Standards  of  the  Church  and  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  when  such  affirmations  consisted  only  of  unsworn 
statements,  which  statements  were  not  competent  evidence 
and  should  have  had  no  greater  weight  or  influence  in 
shaping  the  final  judgment  than  the  ordinary  and  tech- 
nical plea  of  "not  guilty." 

SPECIFICATION  SIXTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery  received  and  was 
moved  by  unsworn  and  improper  testimony  in  making 
its  decision  or  final  judgment,  said  improper  testimony 


39 

being  statements  and  arguments  for  the  defence  of  said 
accused,  touching  the  merits  of  the  case  and  being  ex- 
planations made  by  the  accused  of  the  language  used  in 
his  Inaugural  Address  and  also  statements  referred  to  in 
the  said  final  judgment,  as  a  frank  and  full  disclaimer  of 
the  interpretation  which  has  been  put  upon  some  of  its 
phrases  and  illustrations  and  in  giving  to  the  argument 
of  the  said  accused,  as  counsel  in  his  own  behalf,  the  con- 
sideration due  to  sworn  and  approbated  testimony  as 
provided  for  in  Sections  61  and  62  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline. 

SPECIFICATION  SEVENTH. 

In  this,  that  said  final  judgment  is  vague  and  mislead 
ing  and  confounds  unjustifiable  controversy  with  useful 
and  constitutional  discipline,  ignoring  the  fact  that 
"The  ends  of  Discipline  are  the  maintenance  of  the 
truth,  the  vindication  of  the  authority  and  honor  of 
Christ,  the  removal  of  offences,  the  promotion  of  the 
purity  and  edification  of  the  Church,  and  the  spiritual 
good  of  offenders."     (Book  of  Discipline,  Sec.  2.) 

SPECIFICATION  EIGHTH. 

In  this,  that  said  final  judgment  is  misleading  and  un- 
just, because  it  evidently  but  erroneously  aims  to  set 
forth  that  there  has  been  an  effort  to  convict  the  accused 
by  inference  or  implication,  and  in  quoting  the  words 
"  there  are  truths  and  forms  with  respect  to  which  men 
of  good  character  may  differ,' '  seems  to  deny  and  make 
light  of  the  well  established  principle  of  our  polity,  that 
there  are  also  truths  and  forms  with  respect  to  which  men 
of  good  character,  who  have  assumed  the  ordination 
vows  of  a  Minister  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  should  not  differ. 

SPECIFICATION  NINTH. 

In  this,  that  upon  December  28th,  1892,  when  the  Rev, 
George  Alexander,  D.  D.,  offered  a  resolution  as  fol- 
lows, to  wit : 


40 

"The  Court  deems  it  proper  to  declare  that  a  vote  by 
any  member  of  this  Court  not  to  sustain  the  charges  pre- 
ferred against  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  does  not 
denote  approval  of  his  theological  or  critical  views  or  of  the 
manner  in  which  they  have  been  advanced,  but  only  a 
judgment  that  the  specific  charges  have  not  been  estab- 
lished, "  and  after  the  said  resolution  had  been  discussed, 
it  was  laid  on  the  table,  and  subsequently,  after  the  vote 
on  the  Charges  and  Specifications  had  been  taken  the  said 
resolution  of  Dr.  Alexander  was  again  taken  up  and 
referred  to  the  Committee  appointed  to  prepare  the  final 
judgment. 

SPECIFICATION  TENTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  Presbytery,  on  January  9th,  A.  D. 
1893,  sitting  in  private  session,  refused  to  strike  out  of 
the  resolution  offered  by  Rev.  Geo.  Alexander,  D.D.,  and 
referred  to  in  Specification  Ninth,  the  words,  "does  not 
denote  approval  of  his  theological  or  critical  views  or 
of  the  manner  in  which  they  have  been  advanced." 

SPECIFICATION  ELEVENTH. 

In  this,  that  the  said  final  judgment  of  the  said 
Presbytery  is  contradictory  in  form  and  effect,  because 
in  said  final  judgment  the  said  Judicatory  disclaimed 
agreement  with  the  critical  or  theological  views  held 
by  the  accused,  which  were  pronounced  by  said 
Judicatory  when  they  voted  not  to  sustain  the 
charges,  as  in  agreement  with  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Standards.  By  reason  of  their  ordination  vows  and  obli- 
gations, the  views  of  all  the  members  of  the  said  Judica- 
tory must  be  assumed  to  have  been  in  agreement  with  the 
Scriptures  and  Standards.  Therefore,  if  the  views  of  the 
accused  were  in  agreement  with  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Standards,  and  if  the  views  of  the  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  said  Judicatory  were  not  in  agreement  with 
those  of  the  accused,  then  the  views  of  the  majority  of 
the  members  of  the  said  Judicatory  must,  according  to 
the  final  judgment,  have  been  in  disagreement  with  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Standards. 


41 

It  cannot  be  urged  that  there  was  room  for  the  agree- 
ment of  both  the  views  of  the  accused  and  the  views  of 
the  majority  of  the  members  of  the  said  Judicatory  with 
the  Scriptures  and  the  Standards,  because  said  Judicatory 
had  already  determined  when  the  charges  were  pro- 
nounced sufficient  in  form  and  legal  effect,  that  the  said 
views,  if  held  by  the  accused,  constituted  an  offence.  The 
Judicatory  was  therefore  shut  up  to  one  of  two  legal  and 
proper  courses,  either  to  declare  that  they  agreed  with  the 
views  of  the  accused,  or  to  declare  that  the  views  of  the 
accused  disagreed  with  the  Scriptures  and  the  Standards. 
In  the  former  case  they  should  have  refrained  from  dis- 
claiming agreement  with  the  views  of  the  accused  ;  in  the 
latter  case  they  should  have  voted  to  sustain  the  charges. 
There  is,  therefore,  a  contradiction  in  the  form  and  effect 
of  the  final  judgment. 

And  in  conclusion  your  Appellant  prays  your  Vener- 
able Body,  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  to  receive  and 
issue  this  appeal,  and  to  take  therein  such  action  as  in 
your  wisdom  may  seem  best,  in  order  to  secure  and 
preserve  the  purity  and  peace  of  our  Church. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  represented  by 


GEORGE  W.  F.  BIRCH,  1 
JOSEPH  J.  LAMPE, 
ROBERT  F.  SAMPLE, 
JOHN  J.  STEVENSON, 
JOHN  J.  McOOOK, 


Prosecuting 
Committee, 

Appellant. 


42 


Presbytery  of  New  York. 

153  East  78th  Street,  New  York, 
January  19th,  1893. 

Rev.  GK  W.  F.  Birch,  D.  D., 

Chairman  Prosecuting  Committee. 
Dear  Sir : 

I  have  received,  in  due  time,  from  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  representing  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  in  the  case  of  the  said  Presby- 
terian Church  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D., 
written  Notice  of  Appeal,  with  specifications  of  the  errors 
alleged  in  the  said  case,  to  the  General  Assembly,  from 
the  decision  and  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  entered  on  the  ninth  day  of  January,  1893,  and 
have  placed  the  same  on  file. 

Very  truly  yours, 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 


43 


IV. 

The  Following  is  a  Record  of  all  Proceedings 
had  in  the  presbytery  op  new  york,  as  shown 
by  the  Minutes  of  the  Judicatory  during  the 
Trial  of  the  Case. 


The  Marginal  Numbers  Indicate  the  Pages  of  the  Written 
Record  of  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery. 


Lecture  Room,  Scotch  Church, 

June  13,  1892. 
The  following  attested  copy  of  the  judgment  of  the  226 
General  Assembly  in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America  against  the  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  being  an  appeal  from  the  Presbytery  of  227 
New  York  dismissing  the  case,  was  received  from  the 
Stated  Clerk  of  the  General  Assembly. 


The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  1  A       al  fr(m   m 
United  States  of  America         I     judgment  of  the 

against  %?%%<&£ 

Rev,  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.     ]     missing  the  case. 


The  General  Assembly  having  on  the  28th  day  of  May, 
1892,  duly  sustained  all  of  the  specifications  of  error 
alleged  and  set  forth  in  the  appeal  and  specifications  in 
this  case, 

It  is  now,  May  30,  1892,  ordered  that  the  judgment 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  entered  November  4, 
1891,  dismissing  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America  against  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.  D.,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  reversed,  and 
the  case  is  remanded  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  for 
a  new  trial,  with  directions  to  said  Presbytery  to  proceed 


44 

228  to  pass  upon  and  determine  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges 
and  specifications  in  form  and  legal  effect,  and  to  permit 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  to  amend  the  specifications  or 
charges,  not  changing  the  general  nature  of  the  same,  if, 
in  the  furtherance  of  justice,  it  be  necessary  to  amend,  so 
that  the  case  may  be  brought  to  issue  and  tried  on  the 
merits  thereof  as  speedily  as  may  be  practicable. 

A  nd  it  is  further  ordered,  that  the  Stated  Clerk  of  the 
General  Assembly  return  the  record  and  certify  the  pro- 
ceedings had  thereon,  with  the  necessary  papers  relating 
thereto,  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York. 

Presbytery,  on  motion,  adopted  the  following : 

Whereas,  Presbytery  has  received  the  official  notice  of 
the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  in  the  matter  of  the 

229  appeal  against  the  Presbytery  in  dismissing  the  case 
against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D., 

Resolved,  that  in  the  judgment  of  Presbytery  the  issue 
of  the  case  is  impracticable  during  the  summer,  but  will 
receive  the  attention  of  Presbytery  on  its  re-assembling  in 
the  fall. 


253  BRIGGS  CASE. 

New  York,  9th  November,  1 892. 
Scotch  Church,  2  p.  m. 

Presbytery  met,  in  accordance  with  the  direction  of  the 
General  Assembly,  to  take  up  the  judicial  case  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D. 

Constituted  by  prayer. 

Present :  Ministers— John  C.  Bliss,  Mod'r;  Geo.  Alexan- 
der, Sam.  D.  Alexander,  Anson  P.  Atterbury,  W.  Wallace 
Atterbury,  Geo.  W.  F.  Birch,  Nicholas  Bjerring,  Robert  R. 
Booth,  Samuel  Boult,  Saml.  Bowden,  Thomas  S.  Bradner, 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  Francis  Brown,  John  M.  Buchanan, 
Walter  D.  Buchanan,  James  Chambers,  Henry  B. 
Chapin,  Edward  L.  Clark,  John  B.  Devins,  Ira  S.  Dodd, 
D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad  Doench,  Wm.  Durant,  Thomas 


45 

Douglas,  Howard  Duffield,  John  H.  Edwards,  Frank  F. 
Ellinwood,  Henry  B.  Elliot,  Wm.  T.  Elsing,  Henry  M. 
Field,  Walter  B.  Floyd,  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford,  254 
Charles  H.  Gardner,  Charles  R.  Gillett,  Henri  Grand- 
lienard,  James  Hall,  A.  Woodruff  Halsey,  Wm.  R.  Har- 
shaw,  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Spencer  L.  Hillier,  Edward 
W.  Hitchcock,  James  H.  Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  A.  D. 
Lawrence  Jewett,  Albert  B.  King,  Saml.  M.  Jackson,  A. 
Dunlap  King,  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  Sidney  G.  Law,  Theo- 
dore Leonhard,  Joseph  P.  Lestrade,  Milton  S.  Littlefield, 
John  C.  Lowrie,  Daniel  L.  Lorenz,  Geo.  C.  Lucas,  Wm. 
M.  Martin,  Charles  P.  Mallery,  Francis  H.  Marling, 
Henry  M.  McCracken,  Henry  T.  McEwen,  James  H. 
Mcllvaine,  Alexander  H.  McKinney,  Alex.  McLain, 
Horace  G.  Miller,  Geo.  J.  Mingins,  William  L.  Moore, 
James  C.  Nightingale,  Israel  H.  Northrup,  Geo.  Nixon, 
Daniel  H.  Overton,  Charles  H.  Parkhurst,  Levi  H. 
Parsons,  James  G.  Patterson,  John  R.  Paxton,  Wm.  M. 
Paxton,  Edward  P.  Payson,  Geo.  S.  Payson,  Geo.  L. 
Prentiss,  Daniel  Redmon,  James  S.  Ramsey,  Charles  S. 
Robinson,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  Albert  G.  Ruliffson, 
Robert  F.  Sample,  Joseph  Sanderson,  Wm.  A.  Rice, 
Joseph  A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  Adolphus  F.  Schauffler, 
J.  Balcom  Shaw,  Geo.  L.  Shearer,  Andrew  Shiland,  255 
David  G.  Smith,  Roswell  D.  Smith,  Wilton  M.  Smith, 
John  M.  Stevenson,  Wm.  C.  Stitt,  Charles  A.  Stoddard, 
J.  Ford  Sutton,  Alex.  W.  Sproull,  Geo.  L.  Spining, 
Charles  L.  Thompson,  John  J.  Thompson,  Charles  H. 
Tyndall,  Henry  M.  Tyndal,  Henry  VanDyke,  Marvin  R. 
Vincent,  Abbott  L.  R.  Waite,  Thomas  G.  Wall,  W.  Scott 
Watson,  Geo.  S.  Webster,  Erskine  N.  White,  Gaylord  S. 
White,  John  T.  Wilds,  Livingston  Willard,  Geo.  W. 
Wood,  David  G.  Wylie,  Duncan  J.  McMillan. 

Elders — Moses  P.  Brown,  Adams  Mem'l ;  James  256 
Tompkins,  Bethany ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux,  Brick ;  A.  P. 
Ketcham,  Calvary,  Wm.  Mickens,  Central ;  Andrew 
Robinson,  Christ ;  James  McDowell,  East  Harlem ; 
H.  Edward  Rowland,  Fifth  Ave.  ;  Wm.  McJimp- 
sey,    First ;    Geo.    P.    Hotaling,    First    Union ;   John 


46 

Mc William,  Fourth ;  Geo.  E.  Sterry,  Fourth  Ave. ;  Saml. 
H.  Willard,  Harlem  ;  Joseph  Moorhead,  Knox ;  Charles 
H.  Woodbury,  Madison  Square ;  Robert  Johnson,  Mor- 
risania  First;  Thomas  Anderson,  New  York;  G.  C. 
King,  North  ;  Henry  Q.  Hawley,  Park  ;  James  E.  Ware, 
Phillips ;  Geo.  C.  Lay,  Puritans ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge, 
Riverdale ;  Wm.  M.  Onderdonk,  Rutgers ;  Robert 
Houston,  Scotch ;  John  Denham,  Sea  and  Land ;  Joseph 
La  Boyteaux,  Seventh  ;  James  L.  Wilson,  Spring  St. ; 
Wm.  R.  Worrall,  Thirteenth  St.  ;  Thomas  Bond,  Uni- 
versity Place  ;  Robert  Gentle,  Union  Tabernacle ;  Wm. 
A.  Wheelock,  Washington  Heights ;  Robert  Jaffray, 
West ;  Clarence  P.  Leggett,  West  End  ;  Alex'r  Wilson, 
W.  Fifty-First  St.  ;  Thomas  Anderson,  New  York. 

The  Committee  of  Arrangements  appointed  at  the  last 
regular  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  reported  as  follows : 

257  The  Committee  of  Arrangements  would  report  that  the 
instructions  of  Presbytery  relative  to  the  appointment  of 
an  official  stenographer  has  been  fully  carried  out. 

We  have  secured  the  services  of  Mr.  Charles  A.  Mor- 
rison, who  agrees  to  furnish  three  type-written  copies  of 
the  stenographic  report  daily,  it  being  understood  that 
the  official  report  is  the  exclusive  property  of  the  Presby- 
tery. 

The  Committee  also  reports  that  sufficient  space  has 
been  reserved  for  members  of  the  Presbytery  and  visiting 
clergymen,  and  the  families  of  those  most  interested  in 
the  proceedings ;  the  remainder  of  the  space  to  be  open 
to  the  public. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  adopted. 

258  By  direction  of  Presbytery,  the  Moderator  appointed, 
as  an  additional  temporary  clerk,  the  Rev.  Thomas 
Douglas. 

The  Moderator  now  announced  that  the  Body  was  now 
about  to  be  constituted  a  Court  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  he 
solemnly  admonished  the  members  of  Presbytery  to  recol- 
lect and  regard  the  high  character  of  the  position  they 
were  to  occupy  as  Judges. 


259 


47 

The  following  action  of  the  General  Assembly  was  then 
read.    (See  page  227  of  this  volume.) 

Whereupon  the  Moderator  asked  if  the  Charges  and 
Specifications,  before  presented,  were  to  be  those  upon 
which  the  trial  was  to  proceed,  or  if  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  wished  to  present  amended  Charges  and  Speci- 
fications. 

Dr.  Briggs  then  submitted  the  following  objections  to 
the  procedure : 

I  do  hereby  submit  to  Presbytery  the  following  objec- 
tions to  the  procedure : 

1.  A  Committee  originally  appointed  to  "arrange  and 
prepare  the  necessary  proceedings  appropriate  in  the  case 
of  Dr.  Briggs,"  appears  before  you  claiming  to  be  a 
Committee  of  Prosecution,  and  they  are  recognized  as 
such  by  the  Moderator,  giving  them  the  floor  to  act  in 
that  capacity.  But  their  right  so  to  act  is  legally  ques- 
tioned by  complaint  to  the  Synod  of  New  York,  and  it 
has  not  yet  been  lawfully  determined  by  the  Synod. 

2.  This  Committee  appeared  before  the  last  General 
Assembly  as  an  original  party,  and  acted  as  such  by 
presenting  an  appeal  against  the  judgment  of  the  Presby- 
tery in  dismissing  the  case  against  me.  They  now  appear 
before  you  as  an  original  party,  successful  in  their 
appeal.  Their  right  to  act  as  an  original  party  is  ques- 
tioned in  the  said  complaint,  and  it  has  not  been  lawfully  260 
determined  by  the  Synod. 

3.  This  Committee  claims  to  represent  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  to  be  inde- 
pendent of  this  Presbytery  which  appointed  them.  They 
acted  independently  of  the  Presbytery  by  appealing  to 
the  General  Assembly  against  the  judgment  of  the  Pres- 
bytery in  dismissing  the  case  against  me.  They  now  ap- 
pear before  you  with  a  reversal  of  the  judgment  of  the 
Presbytery  which  they  have  obtained.  Their  right  to  act 
independently  of  the  Presbytery  is  questioned  in  the  said 
complaint  and  it  has  not  yet  been  lawfully  determined  by 
the  Synod. 


261 


48 

4.  This  Committee  appears  before  you,  having  acted,  as 
is  claimed,  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Church, 
which  provides  that  when  a  complaint  has  been  signed  by 
more  than  one- third  of  those  presentand  voting  in  the  Pres- 
bytery, it  acts  as  a  stay  to  further  proceedings.  The  above- 
mentioned  complaint,  signed  by  a  majority  of  the  voters, 
has  been  filed  with  the  Synod  of  New  York,  and  has  been 
found  in  order  by  the  Synod  of  New  York,  and  is  now  in 
possession  of  that  Synod.  Until  the  questions  raised  in 
such  complaint  have  been  determined,  this  Committee 
cannot  legally  take  any  action  in  the  matters  complained 
of.  They  cannot  act  as  a  Prosecuting  Committee,  or  as 
an  original  party,  or  as  independent  of  the  Presbytery, 
and  you  cannot  allow  them  so  to  act  without  a  viola- 
tion of  the  law  of  complaint  embedded  in  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  Church. 

Inasmuch  as  the  Synod  of  New  York  suggested  that 
the  complainants,  being,  according  to  the  number  of  signers 
in  the  complaint,  a  majority  of  the  Presbytery,  "may 
have  the  remedy  in  their  own  hands,"  the  Presbytery 
are  respectfully  requested  to  apply  the  said  remedy  and 
in  accordance  with  the  provision  of  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline, to  determine  these  preliminary  objections. 

[Signed.]    C.  A.  Briggs. 
262      Elder  John  J.  McCook,  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee, 
was  then  heard  in  reply  to  these  objections. 

A  point  of  order  was  here  raised  as  to  whether  any- 
thing is  in  order  except  the  consideration  of  the  specific 
action  of  the  General  Assembly. 

The  Moderator  decided  that  the  point  of  order  was  well 
taken.  That  the  raising  of  the  question  of  the  status  of 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  and  of  its  right  to  appear  and 
continue  the  conduct  of  this  case  is  not  now  in  order  for 
these  reasons : 

1  st.  That  this  whole  question  was  fully  discussed  and 
decided  by  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  General 
Assembly. 

2d.  That  the  recognition  of  the  status  of  the  Committee 
and  its  powers  as  defined  in  the  appeal  were  embodied  in 


the    Judicial    Committee's    report,    recommending   the 
entertainment  of  the  appeal. 

3d.  That  in  the  minutes  of   the  General   Assembly,  263 
giving  its  findings  in  the  case,  the  Committee' s  status  is 
clearly  recognized. 

4th.  That  the  protest  recorded  in  the  minutes  of  the 
General  Assembly  by  those  objecting  to  its  action,  was 
based,  on  the  fact,  that  its  action  in  entertaining  the 
appeal  gave  the  committee  the  standing  and  powers 
claimed  for  it ;  and 

Lastly.  That  the  order  sending  the  case  again  to  this 
Presbytery,  requiring  us  to  proceed  to  pass  upon  and 
determine  the  sufficiency  of  the  Charges  and  Specifications, 
as  to  form  and  legal  effect,  and  to  proceed  with  the  trial,  this 
being  the  single  point  before  us  to  be  acted  upon,  there- 
fore the  Moderator' s  decision  is,  that  this  question  is  out 
of  order. 

An   appeal   to    the    house    against    the    Moderator's 
decision  was  then  taken.     On  a  vote  being  taken,   a  264 
division  was  called  for,  which  resulted  in  73  to  58  in  favor 
of  the  Moderator' s  decision. 

Dr.  Briggs  then  gave  notice  of  an  appeal  and  complaint 
to  the  Synod. 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  now  declared  that  they 
were  ready  to  present  Amended  Charges  and  Specifica- 
tions. 

Dr.  Briggs  assented. 

On  motion  they  were  permitted  to  present  such 
Amended  Charges  and  Specifications  as  follows : 


50 


264  PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK. 


The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America 

AGAINST 

The  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D. 


AMENDED  CHARGES  AND  SPECIFICATIONS. 


Charge  I. 


The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  being 

265  a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  the  Reason 
is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  which  may  and  does 
savingly  enlighten  men,  even  such  men  as  reject  the 
Scriptures  as  the  authoritative  proclamation  of  the  will 
of  God  and  reject  also  the  way  of  salvation  through  the 
mediation  and  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God  as  revealed 
therein;  which  is  contrary  to  the  essential  doctrine  of 
the  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the  Standards  of  the  said 
Church,  that  the  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary,  and 
the  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

SPECIFICATION  I. 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20th,  1891, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robin- 
son Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been 

266  published  and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge 
and  approval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D., 
and  has  been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition  with 
a  preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the  following 
sentences : 


51 

Page  24,  lines  7-10  and  31-33  : 

11  Divine  authority  is  the  only  authority  to  which  man 
can  yield  implicit  obedience,  on  which  he  can  rest  in 
loving  certainty  and  build  with  joyous  confidence.  *  *  * 
There  are  historically  three  great  fountains  of  divine 
authority — the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Eeason." 

Page  27,  lines  9  to  21 : 

"Martineau  could  not  find  divine  authority  in  the 
Church  or  the  Bible,  but  he  did  find  God  enthroned  in 
his  own  soul.  There  are  those  who  would  refuse  these 
rationalists  a  place  in  the  company  of  the  faithful.  But 
they  forget  that  the  essential  thing  is  to  find  God  and 
divine  certainty,  and  if  these  men  have  found  God  with- 
out the  mediation  of  Church  and  Bible,  Church  and 
Bible  are  means  and  not  ends  ;  they  are  avenues  to  God,  267 
but  are  not  God.  We  regret  that  these  rationalists  de- 
preciate the  means  of  grace  so  essential  to  most  of  us, 
but  we  are  warned  lest  we  commit  a  similar  error,  and 
depreciate  the  reason  and  the  Christian  consciousness." 

Inaugural  Address,  Appendix,  Second  Edition,  pages 
88,  89 : 

"  (c.)  Unless  God's  authority  is  discerned  in  the  forms 
of  the  Reason,  there  is  no  ground  upon  which  any  of 
the  heathen  could  ever  have  been  saved,  for  they  know 
nothing  of  Bible  or  Church.  If  they  are  not  savingly 
enlightened  by  the  Light  of  the  World  in  the  forms  of 
the  Reason  the  whole  heathen  world  is  lost  forever." 

SPECIFICATION  II. 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.  I).,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20th,  1891, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robin- 
son Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been 
published  and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge 
and  approval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D., 
and  has  been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition 
with  a  preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the  follow- 
ing sentences : 


268 


52 

Page  28,  lines  1  to  22 : 

"(3.)  The  Authority  of  Holy  Scripture. — We  have 
examined  the  Church  and  the  Reason  as  seats  of  divine 
authority  in  an  introduction  to  our  theme,  the  Authority 
of  the  Scriptures,  because  they  open  our  eyes  to  see  mis- 
takes that  are  common  to  the  three  departments.  Prot- 
estant Christianity  builds  its  faith  and  life  on  the  divine 
authority  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  and  too  often 
depreciates  the  Church  and  the  Reason.  Spurgeon  is  an 
example  of  the  average  modern  Evangelical,  who  holds 
the  Protestant  position,  and  assails  the  Church  and 
Reason  in  the  interest  of  the  authority  of  Scripture.  But 
the  average  opinion  of  the  Christian  world  would  not 
assign  him  a  higher  place  in  the  kingdom  of  God  than 
Martineau  or  Newman.  May  we  not  conclude,  on  the 
whole,  that  these  three  representative  Christians  of  our 
time,  living  in  or  near  the  world's  metropolis,  have,  each 
in  his  way,  found  God  and  rested  on  divine  authority  % 
May  we  not  learn  from  them  not  to  depreciate  any  of  the 
means  whereby  God  makes  himself  known  to  men  %  Men 
are  influenced  by  their  temperaments  and  environments 
which  of  the  three  ways  of  access  to  God  they  may 
pursue." 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  Scripture  : 

Isaiah  viii.  20.  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony:  if 
they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is  because  there 
is  no  light  in  them. 

Matt.  x.  32,  33. — 32  Whosoever  therefore  shall  confess 

me  before  men,  him  will  I  confess  also  before  my  Father 

270  which  is  in  heaven.    33  But  whosoever  shall  deny  me 

before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my  Father  which 

is  in  heaven. 

Luke  xvi.  29-31. — 29  Abraham  saith  unto  him,  They 
have  Moses  and  the  prophets  ;  let  them  hear  them.  30 
And  he  said,  Nay,  father  Abraham :  but  if  one  went  unto 
them  from  the  dead,  they  will  repent.  31  And  he  said 
unto  him,  If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  prophets, 
neither  will  they  be  persuaded,  though  one  rose  from  the 
dead. 


53 

John  v.  39.  Search  the  Scriptures;  for  in  them  ye 
think  ye  have  eternal  life ;  And  they  are  they  which 
testify  of  me. 

John  xiv.  6.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  I  am  the  way,  and 
the  truth,  and  the  life :  no  man  cometh  unto  the  Father, 
but  by  me. 

1  John  v.  10.  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God 
hath  the  witness  in  himself :  he  that  believeth  not  God 
hath  made  him  a  liar,  because  he  believeth  not  the  record 
that  God  gave  of  his  Son. 

Gal.  i.  9.    As  we  said  before,  so  say  I  now  again,  If 
any  man  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  ye  271 
have  received,  let  him  be  accursed. 

2  Timothy  iii.  15-17. — 15  And  that  from  a  child  thou 
hast  known  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make 
thee  wise  unto  salvation  through  faith  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus.  16  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God, 
and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction, 
for  instruction  in  righteousness:  17  That  the  man  of 
God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good 
works. 

2  Peter  i.  19-21.— 19  We  have  also  a  more  sure  word 
of  prophecy  ;  whereunto  ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed,  as 
unto  a  light  that  shineth  in  a  dark  place,  until  the  day 
dawn,  and  the  day  star  arise  in  your  hearts :  20  Knowing 
this  first,  that  no  prophecy  of  the  Scripture  is  of  any 
private  interpretation.  21  For  the  prophecy  came  not  in 
old  time  by  the  will  of  man  :  but  holy  men  of  God  spake 
as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  Standards  :  272 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Sees.  I.,  V.,  VI.,  X. 

I.  Although  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  works  of  crea- 
tion and  providence,  do  so  far  manifest  the  goodness, 
wisdom,  and  power  of  God,  as  to  leave  men  inexcusable  ; 
yet  they  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God, 
and  of  his  will,  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation; 
therefore  it  pleased  the  Lord,  at  sundry  times,  and  in 
divers  manners,  to  reveal  himself,  and  to  declare  that  his 
will  unto  his  church ;    and  afterwards,  for  the  better 


54 

preserving  and  propagating  of  the  truth,  and  for  the  more 
sure  establishment  and  comfort  of  the  church  against  the 
corruption  of  the  flesh,  and  the  malice  of  Satan  and  of 
the  world,  to  commit  the  same  wholly  unto  writing: 
which  mdketh  the  Holy  Scripture  to  he  most  necessary  ; 
those  former  ways  of  God's  revealing  his  will  unto  his 

273  people  being  now  ceased. 

V.  We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony 
of  the  church  to  an  high  and  reverent  esteem  for  the  Holy 
Scripture ;  and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the 
efficacy  of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the 
consent  of  all  the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole,  (which  is 
to  give  all  glory  to  God,)  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of 
the  only  way  of  man's  salvation,  the  many  other  incom- 
parable excellencies,  and  the  entire  perfection  thereof, 
are  arguments  whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence 
itself  to  be  the  word  of  God ;  yet,  notwithstanding,  our 
full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth,  and 
divine  authority  thereof,  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in 
our  hearts. 

274  ^*  r^ie  whole  counsel  of  God,  concerning  all  things 
necessary  for  his  own  glory,  man's  salvation,  faith,  and 
life,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in  Scripture,  or  by 
good  and  necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from 
Scripture:  unto  which  nothing  at  any  time  is  to  be 
added,  whether  by  new  revelations  of  the  Spirit,  or  tra- 
ditions of  men.  Nevertheless  we  acknowledge  the  in- 
ward illumination  of  the  Spirit  of  God  to  be  necessary  for 
the  saving  understanding  of  such  things  as  are  revealed 
in  the  word  ;  and  that  there  are  some  circumstances  con- 
cerning the  worship  of  God,  and  government  of  the 
church,  common  to  human  actions  and  societies,  which 
are  to  be  ordered  by  the  light  of  nature  and  Christian 
prudence,  according  to  the  general  rules  of  the  word, 
which  are  always  to  be  observed. 

X.  The  Supreme  Judge,  by  which  all  controversies  of 
religion  are  to  be  determined,  and  all  decrees  of  councils, 


55 

opinions  of  ancient  writers,  doctrines  of  men,  and  private  275 
spirits,  are  to  be  examined,  and  in  whose  sentence  we 
are  to  rest,  can  he  no  other  hut  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking 
in  the  Scripture. 

Larger  Catechism. 

Q.  2.  How  doth  it  appear  that  there  is  a  God  ? 

A.  The  very  light  of  nature  in  man,  and  the  works  of 
God,  declare  plainly  that  there  is  a  God  ;  hut  his  word 
and  Spirit  only,  do  sufficiently  and  effectually  reveal 
him  unto  men  for  their  salvation. 

Q.  3.    What  is  the  Word  of  God? 

A.  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment are  the  word  of  God,  the  only  rule  of  faith  and 
ohedience. 

Shorter  Catechism. 

Q.  2.  What  rule  hath  God  given  to  direct  us  how  we 
may  glorify  and  enjoy  him  ? 

A.  The  word  of  God,  which  is  contained  in  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  is  the  only  rule 
to  direct  us  how  we  may  glorify  and  enjoy  him. 

Charge  II.  319 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  being 
a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  the  Church 
is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  which,  apart  from  the 
Holy  Scripture,  may  and  does  savingly  enlighten  men ; 
which  is  contrary  to  the  essential  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Scripture  and  of  the  Standards  of  the  said  Church,  that 
the  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary  and  the  rule  of  faith 
and  practice. 

SPECIFICATION  I. 


In  an  inaugural  address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20,  1891,  on  the 


320 


56 

occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair 
of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been  published 
and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge  and  ap- 
proval of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  and  has 
been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition  with  a  preface 
and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the  following  sentences : 

Page  24,  lines  7-10  and  31-33  : 

u  Divine  authority  is  the  only  authority  to  which  man 
can  yield  implicit  obedience,  on  which  he  can  rest  in 
loving  certainty  and  build  with  joyous  confidence.  *  *  * 
There  are  historically  three  great  fountains  of  divine 
authority — the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason. 

Page  25,  lines  1  to  14,  inclusive : 

"(1.)  The  Authority  of  the  Church. — The  majority  of 
Christians  from  the  apostolic  age  have  found  God  through 

321  the  Church.  Martyrs  and  Saints,  Fathers  and  Schoolmen, 
the  profoundest  intellects,  the  saintliest  lives,  have  had 
this  experience.  Institutional  Christianity  has  been  to 
them  the  presence-chamber  of  God.  They  have  therein 
and  thereby  entered  into  communion  with  all  saints.  It 
is  difficult  for  many  Protestants  to  regard  this  experience 
as  any  other  than  pious  illusion  and  delusion.  But  what 
shall  we  say  of  a  modern  like  Newman,  who  could  not 
reach  certainty,  striving  never  so  hard,  through  the  Bible 
or  the  Reason,  but  who  did  find  divine  authority  in  the 
institutions  of  the  Church  % " 

SPECIFICATION  II. 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20,  1891,  on  the 
occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair 

322  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been  published 
and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge  and  ap- 
proval of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  and  has 
been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition  with  a 
preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the  following 
sentences : 


57 
Page  28,  lines  1  to  22,  are : 

"(3.)  The  Authority  of  Holy  Scripture. — We  have 
examined  the  Church  and  the  Reason  as  seats  of  divine 
authority  in  an  introduction  to  our  theme,  the  Authority 
of  the  Scriptures,  because  they  open  our  eyes  to  see  mis- 
takes that  are  common  to  the  three  departments.  Prot- 
estant Christianity  builds  its  faith  and  life  on  the  divine 
authority  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  and  too  often  de- 
preciates the  Church  and  the  Reason.  Spurgeon  is  an 
example  of  the  average  modern  Evangelical,  who  holds 
the  Protestant  position,  and  assails  the  Church  and 
Reason  in  the  interest  of  the  authority  of  Scripture.  But 
the  average  opinion  of  the  Christian  world  would  not 
assign  him  a  higher  place  in  the  kingdom  of  God  than  323 
Martineau  or  Newman.  May  we  not  conclude,  on  the 
whole,  that  these  three  representative  Christians  of  our 
time,  living  in  or  near  the  world's  metropolis,  have,  each 
in  his  way,  found  God  and  rested  on  divine  authority  ? 
May  we  not  learn  from  them  not  to  depreciate  any  of  the 
means  whereby  God  makes  himself  known  to  men  I  Men 
are  influenced  by  their  temperaments  and  environments 
which  of  the  three  ways  of  access  to  God  they  may 
pursue." 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture. 

Isaiah  viii.  20.  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony :  if 
they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is  because  there 
is  no  light  in  them. 

Matt.  x.  32,  33. — 32  Whosoever  therefore  shall  confess 
me  before  men,  him  will  I  confess  also  before  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven.    33  But  whosoever  shall  deny  me  324 
before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my  Father  which 
is  in  heaven. 

Luke  xvi.  29-31. — 29  Abraham  saith  unto  him,  They 
have  Moses  and  the  prophets ;  let  them  hear  them.  30  And 
he  said,  Nay,  father  Abraham :  but  if  one  went  unto  them 
from  the  dead,  they  will  repent.  31  And  he  said  unto 
him,  If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither 
will  they  be  persuaded,  though  one  rose  from  the  dead. 


58 

John  v.  39.  Search  the  Scriptures;  for  in  them  ye 
think  ye  have  eternal  life ;  And  they  are  they  which  testify 
of  me. 

John  xiv.  6.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  I  am  the  way,  and 
the  truth  and  the  life :  no  man  cometh  unto  the  Father 
but  by  me. 

1  John  v.  10.     He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God 

325  hath  the  witness  in  himself  :  he  that  believeth  not  God, 
hath  made  him  a  liar,  because  he  believeth  not  the  record 
that  God  gave  of  his  Son. 

Gal.  i.  9.  As  we  said  before,  so  say  I  now  again,  if  any 
man  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  ye  have 
received,  let  him  be  accursed. 

2  Timothy  iii.  15-17. — 15  And  that  from  a  child  thou 
hast  known  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make 
thee  wise  unto  salvation  through  faith  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus.  16  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God, 
and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction, 
for  instruction  in  righteousness :  17  That  the  man  of  God 
may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good 
works. 

2  Peter  i.  19-21. — 19  We  have  also  a  more  sure  word 

326  of  prophecy  ;  whereunto  ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed,  as 
unto  a  light  that  shineth  in  a  dark  place,  until  the  day 
dawn,  and  the  day  star  arise  in  your  hearts :  20  Knowing 
this  first,  that  no  prophecy  of  the  Scripture  is  of  any 
private  interpretation.  21  For  the  prophecy  came  not  in 
old  time  by  the  will  of  man  :  but  Holy  men  of  God  spake 
as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  Standards  : 
Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  1.,  Sees.  I.,  V.,  VI.,  X. 

I.  Although  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  works  of  crea- 
tion and  providence,  do  so  far  manifest  the  goodness,  wis- 
dom, and  power  of  God,  as  to  leave  men  inexcusable  ;  yet 
they  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God,  and 
of  his  will,  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation  ;  therefore 
it  pleased  the  Lord,  at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers  man- 
ners, to  reveal  himself,  and  to  declare  that  his  will  unto 


59 

his  church  ;  and  afterwards,  for  the  better  preserving  and  327 
propagating  of  the  truth,  and  for  the  more  sure  establish- 
ment and  comfort  of  the  church  against  the  corruption  of 
the  flesh,  and  the  malice  of  Satan  and  of  the  world,  to 
commit  the  same  wholly  unto  writing :  which  mdketh  the 
Holy  Scripture  to  be  most  necessary ;  those  former  ways 
of  God's  revealing  his  will  unto  his  people  being  now 
ceased. 

V.  We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony  of 
the  church  to  an  high  and  reverent  esteem  for  the  Holy 
Scripture  ;  and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the  efficacy 
of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style, the  consent  of  all 
the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole,  (which  is  to  give  all 
glory  to  God,)  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only  way 
of  man's  salvation,  the  many  other  incomparable  excel- 
lencies, and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are  arguments 
whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word  323 
of  God ;  yet,  notwithstanding,  our  full  persuasion  and 
assurance  of  the  infallible  truth,  and  divine  authority 
thereof,  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bear- 
ing witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts. 

VI.  The  whole  counsel  of  God,  concerning  all  things 
necessary  for  his  own  glory,  man's  salvation,  faith,  and 
life,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in  Scripture,  or  by  good 
and  necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from  Scrip- 
ture :  unto  which  nothing  at  any  time  is  to  be  added, 
whether  by  new  revelations  of  the  Spirit,  or  traditions  of 
men.  Nevertheless  we  acknowledge  the  inward  illumina- 
tion of  the  Spirit  of  God  to  be  necessary  for  the  saving 
understanding  of  such  things  as  are  revealed  in  the  word  ; 
and  that  there  are  some  circumstances  concerning  the  wor- 
ship of  God,  and  government  of  the  church,  common  to 
human  actions  and  societies,  which  are  to  be  ordered  by 
the  light  of  nature  and  Christian  prudence,  according  to 
the  general  rules  of  the  word,  which  are  always  to  be  329 
observed. 

X.  The  Supreme  Judge,  by  which  all  controversies  of 
religion  are  to  be  determined,  and  all  decrees  of  councils, 


60 

opinions  of  ancient  writers,  doctrines  of  men,  and  private 
spirits,  are  to  be  examined,  and  in  whose  sentence  we  are 
to  rest,  can  be  no  other  but  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in 
the  Scripture. 

Larger  Catechism. 

Q.  2.  How  doth  it  appear  that  there  is  a  God  f 
A.  The  very  light  of  nature  in  man,  and  the  works  of 
God,  declare  plainly  that  there  is  a  God  ;  but  his  word 
and  Spirit  only,  do  sufficiently  and  effectually  reveal  him 
unto  men  for  their  salvation. 

Q.  3.    What  is  the  word  of  God  ? 
A.  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
are  thy  word  of  God,  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  obedience. 

330  Shorter  Catechism. 

Q.  2.  What  rule  hath  God  given  to  direct  us  how  we 
may  glorify  and  enjoy  him  ? 

A.  The  word  of  God,  which  is  contained  in  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  is  the  only  rule  to 
direct  us  how  we  may  glorify  and  enjoy  him. 

Charge  III. 

276  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  being  a 
Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  errors  may  have 
existed  in  the  original  text  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  as  it 
came  from  its  authors,  which  is  contrary  to  the  essential 
doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scripture  and  in  the  Standards 
of  the  said  Church,  that  the  Holy  Scripture  is  the  Word 
of  God  written,  immediately  inspired,  and  the  rule  of 
faith  and  practice. 

SPECIFICATION. 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20,  1891, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robin- 


61 

son  Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been 
published  and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge  277 
and  approval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D., 
and  has  been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition  with 
a  preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the  following 
sentences,  beginning  with  line  4  of  page  35 : 

"I  shall  venture  to  affirm  that,  so  far  as  I  can  see, 
there  are  errors  in  the  Scriptures  that  no  one  has 
been  able  to  explain  away ;  and  the  theory  that  they 
were  not  in  the  original  text  is  sheer  assumption,  upon 
which  no  mind  can  rest  with  certainty.  If  such  errors 
destroy  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  it  is  already  destroyed 
for  historians.  Men  cannot  shut  their  eyes  to  truth  and 
fact.  But  on  what  authority  do  these  theologians  drive 
men  from  the  Bible  by  this  theory  of  inerrancy  ?  The 
Bible  itself  nowhere  makes  this  claim.  The  creeds  of  the 
Church  nowhere  sanction  it.  It  is  a  ghost  of  modern 
evangelicalism  to  frighten  children.  The  Bible  has  main- 
tained its  authority  with  the  best  scholars  of  our  time,  278 
who  with  open  minds  have  been  willing  to  recognize  any 
error  that  might  be  pointed  out  by  Historical  Criticism  ; 
for  these  errors  are  all  in  the  circumstantials  and  not  in 
the  essentials  ;  they  are  in  the  human  setting,  not  in  the 
precious  jewel  itself ;  they  are  found  in  that  section  of 
the  Bible  that  theologians  commonly  account  for  from 
the  providential  superintendence  of  the  mind  of  the  au- 
thor, as  distinguished  from  divine  revelation  itself.  It 
maybe  that  this  providential  superintendence  gives  infalli- 
ble guidance  in  every  particular ;  and  it  may  be  that  it  dif- 
fers but  little,  if  at  all,  from  the  providential  superinten- 
dence of  the  fathers  and  schoolmen  and  theologians  of  the 
Christian  Church.  It  is  not  important  for  our  purpose  that 
we  should  decide  this  question.  If  we  should  abandon 
the  whole  field  of  providential  superintendence  so  far  as  279 
inspiration  and  divine  authority  are  concerned  and  limit 
divine  inspiration  and  authority  to  the  essential  con- 
tents of  the  Bible,  to  its  religion,  faith,  and  morals,  we 
would  still  have  ample  room  to  seek  divine  authority 
where  alone  it  is  essential,  or  even  important,  in  the  teach- 


62 

ing  that  guides  our  devotions,   our  thinking,    and  our 
conduct." 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  statements  of 
Scripture : 

Zech.  vii.  12.  Yea,  they  made  their  hearts  as  an  ada- 
mant stone,  lest  they  should  hear  the  law,  and  the  words 
which  the  Lord  of  hosts  hath  sent  in  his  Spirit  by  the 
former  prophets  :  therefore  came  a  great  wrath  from  the 
Lord  of  hosts. 

Mark  vii.  13.  Making  the  word  of  God  of  none  effect 
through  your  tradition,  which  ye  have  delivered:  and 
many  such  like  things  do  ye. 

Romans  iii.  1,  2. — 1  What  advantage  then  hath  the 
280  Jew  I  or  what  profit  is  there  of  circumcision  ?  2  Much 
every  way :  chiefly,  because  that  unto  them  were  com- 
mitted the  oracles  of  God. 

1  Cor.  ii.  13.  Which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in  the 
words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  teacheth  ;  comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual. 

Galatians  iii.  8.  And  the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that 
God  would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached 
before  the  Gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall 
all  nations  be  blessed. 

2  Pet.  i.  20,  21. — 20  Knowing  this  first,  that  no  proph- 
ecy of  the  Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation.  21 
For  the  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man  r 
but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost, 

2  Tim.  iii.  16.  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of 
God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for'reproof,  for  cor- 
rection, for  instruction  in  righteousness. 

281      These  statements  are  contrary  to  the  Standards. 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Sees.  I.,  II.,  IV.,  VIII. 

I.  Although  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  works  of  crea- 
tion and  providence  do  so  far  manifest  the  goodness, 
wisdom,  and  power  of  God,  as  to  leave  men  inexcusable  ; 
yet  are  they  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  Godr 
and  of  his  will,  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation  ;  there- 


63 

fore  it  pleased  the  Lord,  at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers 
manners,  to  reveal  himself,  and  to  declare  that  his  will 
unto  his  church  ;  and  afterwards,  for  the  better  preserv- 
ing and  propagating  of  the  truth,  and  for  the  more  sure 
establishment  and  comfort  of  the  church  against  the  cor- 
ruption of  the  flesh,  and  the  malice  of  Satan  and  of  the 
world,  to  commit  the  same  wholly  unto  writing ;  which 
maketh  the  Holy  Scripture  to  be  most  necessary  ;  those 
former  ways  of  God's  revealing  his  will  unto  his  people 
being  now  ceased. 

II.  Under  the  name  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  the  word  of  ggg 
God  written,  are  now  contained  all  the  books  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament,  which  are  these : 

OF    THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 


Genesis. 

n.  Chronicles. 

Daniel. 

Exodus. 

Ezra. 

Hosea. 

Leviticus. 

Nehemiah. 

Joel. 

Numbers. 

Esther. 

Amos. 

Deuteronomy. 

Job. 

Obadiah. 

Joshua. 

Psalms. 

Jonah. 

Judges. 

Proverbs. 

Micah. 

Ruth. 

Ecclesiastes. 

Nahum. 

L  Samuel. 

The  Song  of  Songs. 

Habakkuk. 

H  SamueL 

Isaiah. 

Zephaniah. 

I.  Kings. 

Jeremiah. 

Haggai. 

II.   Kings. 

Lamentations. 

Zechariah. 

I.  Chronicles. 

Ezekiel. 

OF   THE  NEW   TESTAMEN1 

Malachi. 

The  Gospels  accord-      Corinthians  n. 

The  Epistle  to  the 

ing  to 

Galatians. 

Hebrews. 

Matthew, 

Ephesians. 

The  Epistle  of  James. 

Mark, 

Philippians. 

The  first  and  second 

Luke, 

Colossians. 

Epistles  of  Peter. 

John. 

Thessalonians  I. 

The  first,  second  and 

The  Acts  of  the 

Thessalonians  H. 

third    Epistles     of 

Apostles. 

To  Timothy,  I. 

John. 

Paul's  Epistles  to  the    To  Timothy,  H. 

The  Epistle  of  Jude. 

Romans. 

To  Titus. 

The  Revelation. 

Corinthians  I. 

To  Philemon. 

283 


All  which  are  given  by  inspiration  of  God  to  be  the 
rule  of  faith  and  life. 


64 

IV. — The  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  for  which 
it  ought  to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon 
the  testimony  of  any  man  or  church,  but  wholly  upon 
God,  (who  is  truth  itself,)  the  author  thereof;  and  there- 
fore it  is  to  be  received,  because  it  is  the  word  of  God. 

284.  VIII. — The  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew,  (which  was  the 
native  language  of  the  people  of  God  of  old,)  and  the  New 
Testament  in  Greek,  (which  at  the  time  of  the  writing  of 
it  was  most  generally  known  to  the  nations,)  being  imme- 
diately inspired  by  God,  and  by  his  singular  care  and 
providence,  kept  pure  in  all  ages,  are  therefore  authentical; 
so  as  in  all  controversies  of  religion  the  Church  is  finally 
to  appeal  unto  them.  But  because  these  original  tongues 
are  not  known  to  all  the  people  of  God  who  have  right 
unto,  and  interest  in  the  Scriptures,  and  are  commanded, 
in  the  fear  of  God,  to  read  and  search  them,  therefore 
they  are  to  be  translated  into  the  vulgar  language  of  every 
nation  unto  which  they  come,  that  the  word  of  God 
dwelling  plentifully  in  all,  they  may  worship  him  in  an 
acceptable  manner,  and,  through  patience  and  comfort  of 
the  Scriptures,  may  have  hope. 

Charge  IV. 

285  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  being 
a  Minister  in  said  Church  and  a  member  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  many  of  the  Old 
Testament  predictions  have  been  reversed  by  history,  and 
that  the  great  body  of  Messianic  prediction  has  not  been 
and  cannot  be  fulfilled,  which  is  contrary  to  the  essential 
doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the  Standards  of  the  said 
Church,  that  God  is  true,  omniscient  and  unchangeable. 

SPECIFICATION. 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20,  1891,  on  the 
occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair 


05 

of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been  published 
and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge  and  ap-  286 
proval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  and  has 
been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition  with  a  pref- 
ace and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the  following  sen- 
tences : 

Page  38,  lines  20  to  30 : 

"(6.)  Minute  Prediction. — Another  barrier  to  the 
Bible  has  been  the  interpretation  put  upon  Predictive 
Prophecy  making  it  a  sort  of  history  before  the  time,  and 
looking  anxiously  for  the  fulfillment  of  the  details  of 
Biblical  prediction.  Kuenen  has  shown  that  if  we  insist 
upon  the  fulfillment  of  the  details  of  the  predictive 
prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament,  many  of  these  predictions 
have  been  reversed  by  history  ;  and  the  great  body  of  the 
Messianic  prediction  has  not  only  never  been  fulfilled,  but 
cannot  now  be  fulfilled,  for  the  reason  that  its  own  time 
has  passed  forever." 

This  declaration  is  contrary  to  Scripture  :  287 

Matt.  v.  17, 18. — 17  Think  not  I  am  come  to  destroy  the 
law,  or  the  prophets :  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to 
fulfill.  18  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Till  heaven  and 
earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from 
the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled. 

Matt.  xxiv.  15.  When  ye,  therefore,  shall  see  the 
abomination  of  desolation,  spoken  of  by  Daniel  the 
prophet,  stand  in  the  holy  place,  (whoso  readeth,  let  him 
understand.) 

Dan.  xii.  11.  And  from  the  time  that  the  daily  sacrifice 
shall  be  taken  away,  and  the  abomination  that  maketh 
desolate  set  up,  there  shall  be  a  thousand  two  hundred 
and  ninety  days. 

Luke  xxiv.  44.  And  he  said  unto  them,  These  are  the 
words  which  I  spake  unto  you,  while  I  was  yet  with  you, 
that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled  which  were  written  in  the 
law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  prophets,  and  in  the  psalms, 
concerning  me. 

Exodus  xxxiv.  6.    And  the  Lord  passed  by  before  him,  288 
and  proclaimed,  The  Lord,  The  Lord  God,  merciful  and 


66 

gracious,  long  suffering,  and  abundant  in  goodness  and 
truth. 

Hebrews  iv.  13.  Neither  is  there  any  creature  that  is 
not  manifest  in  his  sight :  but  all  things  are  naked  and 
opened  unto  the  eyes  of  him  with  whom  we  have  to  do. 

James  i.  17.  Every  good  gift  and  every  perfect  gift  is 
from  above,  and  cometh  down  from  the  Father  of  lights, 
with  whom  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of  turning. 

This  declaration  is  contrary  to  the  Standards : 
Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Section  IV. 

The  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  for  which  it 
ought  to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the 
testimony  of  any  man  or  church,  but  wholly  upon  God, 
{who  is  truth  itself,)  the  author  thereof ;  and  therefore 
it  is  to  be  received,  because  it  is  the  word  of  God. 

289  Chap.  II.,  Sec.  I.,  II. 

I.  There  is  but  one  only  living  and  true  God,  who  is 
infinite  in  being  and  perfection,  a  most  pure  spirit,  in- 
visible, without  body,  parts,  or  passions,  immutable,  im- 
mense, eternal,  incomprehensible,  almighty,  most  wise, 
most  holy,  most  free,  most  absolute,  working  all  things 
according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  immutable  and  most 
righteous  will,  for  his  own  glory  ;  most  loving,  gracious, 
merciful,  long  suffering,  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth, 
forgiving  iniquity,  transgression,  and  sin ;  the  rewarder  of 
them  that  diligently  seek  him  ;  and  withal  most  just  and 
terrible  in  his  judgments ;  hating  all  sin,  and  who  will  by 
no  means  clear  the  guilty. 

II.  God  hath  all  life,  glory,  goodness,  blessedness,  in 
and  of  himself ;  and  is  alone  in  and  unto  himself  all- 
sufficient,  not  standing  in  need  of  any  creatures  which  he 
hath  made,  nor  deriving  any  glory  from  them,  but  only 

290  manifesting  his  own  glory  in,  by,  unto  and  upon  them  : 
he  is  the  alone  fountain  of  all  being,  of  whom,  through 
whom,  and  to  whom,  are  all  things  :  and  hath  most  sover- 
eign dominion  over  them,  to  do  by  them,  for  them,  or 
upon  them,  whatsoever  himself  pleaseth.  In  his  sight 
all  things  are  open  and  manifest ;  his  knowledge  is  in- 


67 

finite,  infallible,  and  independent  upon  the  creature,  so 
as  nothing  is  to  him  contingent  or  uncertain.  He  is  most 
holy  in  all  his  counsels,  in  all  his  works,  and  in  all  his 
commands.  To  him  is  due  from  angels  and  men,  and 
every  other  creature,  whatsoever  worship,  service,  or 
obedience,  he  is  pleased  to  require  of  them. 

Shorter  Catechism. 

Q.  4.      What  is  God  ? 

A.  God  is  a  Spirit,  infinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable, 
in  his  being,  wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justice,  goodness, 
and  truth. 

Charge  V. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  being  291 
a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  Moses  is  not  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  is  contrary  to  direct 
statements  of  Holy  Scripture  and  to  the  essential  doctrines 
of  the  Standards  of  the  said  Church,  that  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture evidences  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God  by  the  consent 
of  all  the  parts,  and  that  the  infallible  rule  of  interpreta- 
tion of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture  itself. 

SPECIFIC  A  TION. 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20, 1891,  on  the 
occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair 
of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been  published 
and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge  and  ap-  292 
proval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  and  has 
been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition  with  a 
preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occurs  the  following  sen- 
tence : 

Page  33,  lines  6-8. 

1 '  It  may  be  regarded  as  the  certain  result  of  the  science 
of  the  Higher  Criticism  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pen- 
tateuch." 


This  declaration  is  contrary  to  direct  statements  of 
Scripture. 

Ex.  xxiv.  4.  And  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  the 
Lord,  and  rose  up  early  in  the  morning,  and  builded  an 
altar  under  the  hill,  and  twelve  pillars  according  to  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel. 

Num.  xxxiii.  2.  And  Moses  wrote  their  goings  out 
according  to  their  journeys  by  the  commandment  of  the 
Lord:  and  these  are  their  journeys  according  to  their 
goings  out. 

293  Deut.  v.  81.  But  as  for  thee,  stand  thou  here  by  me, 
and  I  will  speak  unto  thee  all  the  commandments,  and  the 
statutes,  and  the  judgments,  which  thou  shalt  teach  them, 
that  they  may  do  them  in  the  land  which  I  gave  them  to 
possess  it. 

Deut.  xxxi.  9.  And  Moses  wrote  this  law,  and  de- 
livered it  unto  the  priests  the  sons  of  Levi,  which  bare  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  and  unto  all  the  elders  of 
Israel. 

Josh.  i.  7, 8. — 7  Only  be  thou  strong  and  very  courageous, 
that  thou  mayest  observe  to  do  according  to  all  the  law 
which  Moses  my  servant  commanded  thee :  turn  not  from 
it  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left,  that  thou  mayest  prosper 
whithersoever  thou  goest.  8  This  book  of  the  law  shall 
not  depart  out  of  thy  mouth ;  but  thou  shalt  meditate 
therein  day  and  night,  that  thou  mayest  observe  to  do 

294  according  to  all  that  is  written  therein  :  for  then  thou  shalt 
make  thy  way  prosperous,  and  then  thou  shalt  have  good 
success. 

1  Kings,  ii.  3.  And  keep  the  charge  of  the  Lord  thy  God, 
to  walk  in  his  ways,  to  keep  his  statutes,  and  his  com- 
mandments, and  his  judgments,  and  his  testimonies,  as  it 
is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses  that  thou  mayest  prosper  in 
all  that  thou  doest,  and  whithersoever  thou  turnest  thy- 
self : 

1  Chron.  vi.  49.  But  Aaron  and  his  sons  offered  upon 
the  altar  of  the  burnt  offering,  and  on  the  altar  of  incense, 
and  were  appointed  for  all  the  work  of  the  place  most 
holy,  and  to  make  an  atonement  for  Israel,  according  to 
all  that  Moses  the  servant  of  God  had  commanded. 


69 

Ezra  iii.  2.  Then  stood  up  Jeshua,  the  son  of  Jozadak, 
and  his  brethren  the  priests,  and  Zerubbabel  the  son  of 
Shealtiel,  and  his  brethren,  and  builded  the  altar  of  the 
God  of  Israel,  to  offer  burnt  offerings  thereon,  as  it  is 
written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  the  man  of  God. 

Ezra  vi.  18.    And  they  set  the  priests  in  their  divisions,  295 
and  the  Levites  in  their  courses,  for  the  service  of  God, 
which  is  at  Jerusalem ;  as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of 
Moses. 

Neh.  i.  7.  We  have  dealt  very  corruptly  against  thee, 
and  have  not  kept  the  commandments,  nor  the  statutes, 
nor  the  judgments,  which  thou  commandedst  thy  servant 
Moses. 

Luke  xxiv.  27,  44. — 27  And  beginning  at  Moses,  and 
all  the  prophets,  he  expounded  unto  them  in  all  the 
Scriptures  the  things  concerning  himself.  44  And  he 
said  unto  them,  These  are  the  words  which  I  spake  unto 
you,  while  I  was  yet  with  you,  that  all  things  must  be  ful- 
filled which  were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the 
prophets,  and  in  the  psalms,  concerning  me.  oog 

John  v.  45  to  47. — 45  Do  not  think  that  I  will  accuse 
you  to  the  Father :  there  is  one  that  accuseth  you,  even 
Moses,  in  whom  ye  trust.  46  For  had  ye  believed  Moses, 
ye  would  have  believed  me  :  for  he  wrote  of  me.  47  But 
if  ye  believe  not  his  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  my 
words? 

Acts  vii.  38.  This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church  in  the 
wilderness  with  the  angel  which  spoke  to  him  in  the 
Mount  Sina,  and  with  our  fathers :  who  received  the 
lively  oracles  to  give  unto  us. 

Acts  xv.  21.  For  Moses  of  old  time  hath  in  every  city 
them  that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the  synagogues  every 
sabbath  day. 

This  declaration  is  contrary  to  the  Standards. 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  1,  Sees.  V.  and  IX. 

V.  We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony  of 
the  church  to  an  high  and  reverent  esteem  for  the  Holy  297 
Scripture;  and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the  efficacy 
of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  consent  of  all 


70 

the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole,  (which  is  to  give  all 
glory  to  God,)  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only  way 
of  man's  salvation,  the  many  other  incomparable  excel- 
lencies, and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are  arguments 
whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word 
of  God ;  yet,  notwithstanding,  our  full  persuasion  and 
assurance  of  the  infallible  truth,  and  divine  authority 
thereof,  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bear- 
ing witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts. 

IX.  The  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture 
is  the  Scripture  itself ;  and  therefore,  when  there  is  a 
question  about  the  true  and  full  sense  of  any  scripture, 

298  (which  is  not  manifold,  but  one,)  it  may  be  searched  and 
known  by  other  places  that  speak  more  clearly. 

Chaege  VI. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  being 
a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  Isaiah  is  not  the 
author  of  half  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name,  which  is 
contrary  to  direct  statements  of  Holy  Scripture  and  to  the 
essential  doctrines  of  the  Standards  of  the  said  Church 
that  the  Holy  Scripture  evidences  itself  to  be  the  word  of 
God  by  the  consent  of  all  the  parts,  and  that  the  infallible 
rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture  itself. 

SPECIFICATION. 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological  Semi- 

299  nary  in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20,  1891,  on  the 
occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair 
of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been  published 
and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge  and  ap- 
proval of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  and  has 
been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition  with  a  preface 
and  an  appendix,  there  occurs  the  following  sentence  : 


71 

Page  33,  lines  14-15  : 

"Isaiah  did  not  write  half  of  the  book  that  bears  his 
name." 

This  declaration  is  contrary  to  direct  statements  of 
Scripture : 

Matt.  iv.  14,  15.— 14  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which 
was  spoken  by  Esaias  the  prophet,  saying,  15  The  land 
of  Zabulon,  and  the  land  of  Nepthalim,  by  the  way  of  the 
sea,  beyond  Jordan,  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles  : 

Matt.  xii.  17,  18.— 17  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which 
was  spoken  by  Esaias  the  prophet,  saying,  18  Behold  my  300 
servant,  whom  I  have  chosen  ;  my  beloved,  in  whom  my 
soul  is  well  pleased  :  I  will  put  my  Spirit  upon  him,  and 
he  shall  shew  judgment  to  the  Gentiles. 

Luke  iii.  4. — As  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  words 
of  Esaias  the  prophet,  saying,  The  voice  of  one  crying  in 
the  wilderness,  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  his 
paths  straight. 

Acts  xxviii.  25,  26. — 25  And  when  they  agreed  not 
among  themselves  they  departed,  after  that  Paul  had 
spoken  one  word,  Well  spake  the  Holy  Ghost  by  Esaias 
the  prophet  unto  our  fathers,  26  Saying,  Go  unto  this 
people,  and  say,  Hearing  ye  shall  hear,  and  shall  not 
understand  ;  and  seeing  ye  shall  see,  and  not  perceive. 

John  xii.  38,  41. — 38  That  the  saying  of  Esaias  the 
prophet  might  be  fulfilled,  which  he  spake,  Lord,  who 
hath  believed  our  report?  and  to  whom  hath  the  arm  of 
the  Lord  been  revealed  ?  41  These  things  said  Esaias, 
when  he  saw  his  glory  and  spake  of  him. 

Rom.  x.  16,  20.— 16  But  they  have  not  all  obeyed  the 
gospel.    For  Esaias  saith,  Lord,  who  hath  believed  our 
report?     20  But  Esaias  is  very  bold,  and  saith,  I  was 
found  of  them  that  sought  me  not ;  I  was  made  manifest  301 
unto  them  that  asked  not  after  me. 

This  declaration  is  contrary  to  the  Standards. 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  1,  Sees.  V.  and  IX. 

V.  We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony 
of  the  church  to  an  high  and  reverent  esteem  for  the  Holy 


72 

Scripture  ;  and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the  efficacy 
of  the  doctrine,  the  mnjesty  of  the  style,  the  consent  of 
all  the  parts  ;  the  scope  of  the  whole,  (which  is  to  give 
all  glory  to  God,)  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only 
way  of  man's  salvation,  the  many  other  incomparable 
excellencies,  and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are  argu- 
ments whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be 
the  word  of  God;  yet,  notwithstanding,  our  full  persuasion 
and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth,  and  divine  authority 
thereof,  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

302  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts. 

I X.  The  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is 
the  Scripture  itself ';  and  therefore,  when  there  is  a  ques- 
tion about  the  true  and  full  sense  of  any  scripture,  (which 
is  not  manifold,  but  one,)  it  may  be  searched  and  known 
by  other  places  that  speak  more  clearly. 

Charge  VII. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  being 
a  Minister  of  said  Church,  and  a  member  of  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  the  processes  of  redemp- 
tion extend  to  the  world  to  come  in  the  case  of  many  who 
die  in  sin ;  which  is  contrary  to  the  essential  doctrine  of 
Holy  Scripture  and  the  Standards  of  the  said  Church, 
that  the  processes  of  redemption  are  limited  to  this 
world. 

SPECIFICATION. 

303  In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20,  1891, 
on  the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward  Robin- 
son Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  address  has  been 
published  and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge 
and  approval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D., 
and  has  been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition  with 
a  preface  and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the  following 
sentences : 


73 

Page  50  :  "  The  processes  of  redemption  ever  keep  the 
race  in  mind.  The  Bible  tell  us  of  a  race  origin,  a  race 
sin,  a  race  ideal,  a  race  Redeemer,  and  a  race  redemption." 

Page  53 :  "  (c.)  Another  fault  of  Protestant  theology  is 
in  its  limitation  of  the  process  of  redemption  to  this  world, 
and  its  neglect  of  those  vast  periods  of  time  which  have 
elapsed  for  most  men  in  the  Middle  State  between  death 
and  the  resurrection." 

Pages  55  and  56.  "The  Bible  does  not  teach  universal  304 
salvation,  but  it  does  teach  the  salvation  of  the  world, 
of  the  race  of  man,  and  that  cannot  be  accomplished  by 
the  selection  of  a  limited  number  of  individuals  from  the 
mass.  The  holy  arm  that  worketh  salvation  does  not  con- 
tract its  hand  in  grasping  only  a  few ;  it  stretches  its  loving 
fingers  so  as  to  comprehend  as  many  as  possible — a  definite 
number,  but  multitudes  that  no  one  can  number. 
The  salvation  of  the  world  can  only  mean  the  world  as  a 
whole,  compared  with  which  the  unredeemed  will  be  so 
few  and  insignificant,  and  evidently  beyond  the  reach  of 
redemption  by  their  own  act  of  rejecting  it  and  hardening 
themselves  against  it,  and  by  descending  into  such  depths 
of  demoniacal  depravity  in  the  Middle  State,  that  they 
will  vanish  from  the  sight  of  the  redeemed  as  altogether 
and  irredeemably  evil,  and  never  more  disturb  the  har- 
monies of  the  saints." 

Inaugural  Address,  Appendix,  2d  ed.  305 

Page  104.  This  raises  the  question  whether  any  man  is 
irretrievably  lost  ere  he  commits  this  unpardonable  sin, 
and  whether  those  who  do  not  commit  it  in  this  world  ere 
they  die  are,  by  the  mere  crisis  of  death,  brought  into  an 
unpardonable  state ;  and  whether,  when  Jesus  said  that 
this  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit  was  unpardonable  here  and 
also  hereafter,  he  did  not  imply  that  all  other  sins  might 
be  pardoned  hereafter  as  well  as  here. 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  direct  statements  of 
Scripture : 

Prov.  xi.  7.  When  a  wicked  man  dieth,  his  expecta- 
tion shall  perish  :  and  the  hope  of  unjust  men  perisheth. 


74 

Luke  xvi.  22,  23. — 22  And  it  came  to  pass  that  the 
beggar  died,  and  was  carried  by  the  angels  into  Abraham's 
bosom  :  the  rich  man  also  died,  and  was  bnried  ;  23  And 

306  in  hell  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  being  in  torments,  and  seeth 
Abraham  afar  off,  and  Lazarus  in  his  bosom. 

John  viii.  24.  For  if  ye  believe  not  that  I  am  He,  ye 
shall  die  in  your  sins. 

II.  Cor.  vi.  2.  Behold,  now  is  the  accepted  time ;  be- 
hold, now  is  the  day  of  salvation. 

Heb.  iv.  7.  To-day,  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice,  harden  not 
your  hearts. 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  Standards : 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  XXXII.,  Sec.  I. 

I.  The  bodies  of  men,  after  death,  return  to  dust,  and  see 
corruption  ;  but  their  souls,  (which  neither  die  nor  sleep,) 
having  an  immortal  subsistence,  immediately  return  to 
God  who  gave  them.  The  souls  of  the  righteous,  being 
then  made  perfect  in  holiness,  are  received  into  the  high- 
est heavens,  where  they  behold  the  face  of  God  in  light  and 
glory,  waiting  for  the  full  redemption  of  their  bodies : 
and  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  cast  into  hell,  where  they 

307  remain  in  torments  and  utter  darkness,  reserved  to  the 
judgment  of  the  great  day.  Besides  these  two  places  for 
souls  separated  from  their  bodies,  the  Scripture  acknowl- 
edged none. 

Larger  Catechism. 

Q.  83.  What  is  the  communion  in  glory  with  Christ, 
which  the  members  of  the  invisible  church  enjoy  in  this 
life? 

A.  The  members  of  the  invisible  church  have  commu- 
nicated to  them,  in  this  life,  the  first-fruits  of  glory  with 
Christ,  as  they  are  members  of  him  their  head,  and  so 
in  him  are  interested  in  that  glory  which  he  is  fully 
possessed  of;  and  as  an  earnest  thereof,  enjoy  the  sense 
of  God's  love,  peace  of  conscience,  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  hope  of  glory.  As,  on  the  contrary,  sense  of  God's 
revenging  wrath,  horror  of  conscience,  and  a  fearful  ex- 


75 

pectation  of  judgment,  are  to  the  wicked  the  beginning 
of  the  torments,  which  they  shall  endure  after  death. 

Q.  86.    What  is  the  communion  in  glory  with  Christ,  308 
which  the  members  of  the  invisible  church  enjoy  immedi- 
ately after  death  ? 

A.  The  communion  in  glory  with  Christ,  which  the 
members  of  the  invisible  church  enjoy  immediately  after 
death,  is  in  that  their  souls  are  then  made  perfect  in  holi- 
ness, and  received  into  the  highest  heavens,  where  they 
behold  the  face  of  God  in  light  and  glory  ;  waiting  for  the 
full  redemption  of  their  bodies,  which  even  in  death  con- 
tinue united  to  Christ,  and  rest  in  their  graves  as  in  their 
beds,  till  at  the  last  day  they  be  again  united  to  their 
souls.  Whereas  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  at  their  death 
cast  into  hell,  where  they  remain  in  torments  and  utter 
darkness ;  and  their  bodies  kept  in  their  graves,  as  in 
their  prisons,  until  the  resurrection  and  judgment  of  the 
great  day. 

Charge  VIII. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  309 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  being 
a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  Sanctifica- 
tion  is  not  complete  at  death,  which  is  contrary  to  the 
essential  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the  Standards 
of  the  said  Church  that  the  souls  of  believers  are  at 
their  death  at  once  made  perfect  in  holiness. 

SPECIFICATION. 

In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  delivered  at  the  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary in  the  City  of  New  York,  January  20,  1891,  on  the 
occasion  of  bis  induction  into  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair 
of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been  published 
and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge  and  ap-  310 
proval  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  and  has 
been  republished  by  him  in  a  second  edition  with  a  pref- 
ace and  an  appendix,  there  occur  the  following  sen- 
tences : 


76 

Pages  53,  54,  55  : 

"  (c.)  Another  fault  of  Protestant  theology  is  in  its  lim- 
itation of  the  process  of  redemption  to  this  world,  and 
its  neglect  of  those  vast  periods  of  time  which  have 
elapsed  for  most  men  in  the  Middle  State  between  death 
and  the  resurrection.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  is 
firmer  here,  though  it  smears  the  Biblical  doctrine  with 
not  a  few  hurtful  errors.  The  reaction  against  this  limi- 
tation, as  seen  in  the  theory  of  second  probation,  is  not 
surprising.  I  do  not  find  this  doctrine  in  the  Bible,  but  I 
do  find  in  the  Bible  the  doctrine  of  a  Middle  State  of  con- 
scious higher  life  in  the  communion  with  Christ  and  the 
multitude  of  the  departed  of  all  ages  ;  and  of  the  neces- 
sity of  entire  sanctification,  in  order  that  the  work  of  re- 

311  demption  may  be  completed.  There  is  no  authority  in 
the  Scriptures,  or  in  the  creeds  of  Christendom,  for  the 
doctrine  of  immediate  sanctification  at  death.  The  only 
sanctification  known  to  experience,  to  Christian  ortho- 
doxy, and  to  the  Bible,  is  progressive  sanctification.  Pro- 
gressive sanctification  after  death  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Bible  and  the  Church  ;  and  it  is  of  vast  importance  in  our 
times  that  we  should  understand  it,  and  live  in  accordance 
with  it.  The  bugbear  of  a  judgment  immediately  after 
death,  and  the  illusion  of  a  magical  transformation  in  the 
dying  hour  should  be  banished  from  the  world.  They  are 
conceits  derived  from  the  Ethnic  religions,  and  without 
basis  in  the  Bible  or  Christian  experience  as  expressed  in 
the  symbols  of  the  Church.  The  former  makes  death  a 
terror  to  the  best  of  men,  the  latter  makes  human  life  and 
experience  of  no  effect ;  and  both  cut  the  nerves  of  Chris- 

312  tian  activity  and  striving  after  sanctification.  Renounc- 
ing them  as  hurtful,  unchristian  errors,  we  look  with  hope 
and  joy  for  the  continuation  of  the  processes  of  grace, 
and  the  wonders  of  redemption  in  the  company  of  the 
blessed,  to  which  the  faithful  are  all  hastening." 

Inaugural  Address,  Appendix,  2d  ed.,  pages  107,  108: 
"  Sanctification  has  two  sides — a  negative  and  a  positive — 
mortification  and  vivification  ;  the  former  is  manward,  the 
latter  is  Godward.     Believers  who  enter  the  middle  state, 


77 

enter  guiltless ;  they  are  pardoned  and  justified  ;  they 
are  mantled  in  the  blood  and  righteousness  of  Christ ;  aDd 
nothing  will  be  able  to  separate  them  from  His  love.  They 
are  also  delivered  from  all  temptations  such  as  spring 
from  without,  from  the  world  and  the  devil.  They  are 
encircled  with  influences  for  good  such  as  they  have 
never  enjoyed  before.  But  they  are  still  the  same  persons,  313 
with  all  the  gifts  and  graces,  and  also  the  same  habits  of 
mind,  disposition,  and  temper  they  had  when  they  left 
the  world.  Death  destroys  the  body.  It  does  not  change 
the  moral  and  religious  nature  of  man.  It  is  unpsycho- 
logical  and  unethical  to  suppose  that  the  character  of  the 
disembodied  spirit  will  all  be  changed  in  the  moment  of 
death.  It  is  the  Manichean  heresy  to  hold  that  sin  be- 
longs to  the  physical  organization  and  is  laid  aside  with 
the  body.  If  this  were  so,  how  can  any  of  our  race  carry 
their  evil  natures  with  them  into  the  middle  state  and 
incur  the  punishment  of  their  sins  %  The  eternal  punish- 
ment of  a  man  whose  evil  nature  has  been  stripped  from 
him  by  death  and  left  in  the  grave,  is  an  absurdity.  The 
Plymouth  Brethren  hold  that  there  are  two  natures  in  the 
redeemed — the  old  man  and  the  new.  In  accordance  with 
such  a  theory,  the  old  man  might  be  cast  off  at  death. 
But  this  is  only  a  more  subtle  kind  of  Manicheism,  which  314 
has  ever  been  regarded  as  heretical.  Sin,  as  our  Saviour 
teaches,  has  its  source  in  the  heart — in  the  higher  and 
immortal  part  of  man.  It  is  the  work  of  sanctification  to 
overcome  sin  in  the  higher  nature." 

These  declarations  are  contrary  to  Scripture  : 

1  Cor.  xv.  51,  52. — 51  Behold  I  shew  you  a  mystery; 
We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed.  52 
In  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump  : 
for  the  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the  dead  shall  be  raised 
incorruptible,  and  we  shall  be  changed. 

Heb.  xii.  23. — To  the  general  assembly  and  church  of 
the  firstborn,  which  are  written  in  heaven  and  to  God  the 
Judge  of  all,  and  to  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect. 


78 

315  These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  Standards  : 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  XXXIL,  Sec.  I. 

I.  The  bodies  of  men,  after  death,  return  to  dust,  and 
see  corruption ;  but  their  souls  (which  neither  die  nor 
sleep),  having  an  immortal  subsistence,  immediately  re- 
turn to  God  who  gave  them.  The  souls  of  the  righteous, 
being  then  made  perfect  in  holiness,  are  received  into  the 
highest  heavens,  where  they  behold  the  face  of  God  in 
light  and  glory,  waiting  for  the  full  redemption  of  their 
bodies ;  and  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  cast  into  hell, 
where  they  remain  in  torments  and  utter  darkness,  re- 
served to  the  judgment  of  the  great  day,  besides  these 
two  places  for  souls  separated  from  their  bodies,  the 
Scripture  acknowledgeth  none. 

316  Larger  Catechism. 

Q.  86.  What  is  the  communion  in  glory  with  Christ, 
which  the  members  of  the  invisible  church  enjoy  immedi- 
ately after  death  f 

A.  The  communion  in  glory  with  Christ,  which  the 
members  of  the  invisible  church  enjoy  immediately  after 
death,  is  in  that  their  souls  are  then  made  perfect  in 
holiness,  and  received  into  the  highest  heavens,  where 
they  behold  the  face  of  God  in  light  and  glory ;  waiting 
for  the  full  redemption  of  their  bodies,  which  even  in 
death  continue  united  to  Christ,  and  rest  in  their  graves 
as  in  their  beds,  till  at  the  last  day  they  be  again  united 
to  their  souls.  Whereas  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  at 
their  death  cast  into  hell,  where  they  remain  in  torments 
and  utter  darkness ;  and  their  bodies  kept  in  their 
graves,  as  in  their  prisons,  until  the  resurrection  and 
judgment  of  the  great  day. 

Shorter  Catechism. 

317  Q-  37.  What  benefit  do  believers  receive  from  Christ  at 
their  death  ? 

A.  The  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  per- 
fect in  holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory ; 
and  their  bodies,  being  still  united  in  Christ,  do  rest  in 
their  graves  till  the  resurrection. 


79 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  represented  by  the  undersigned  Prosecuting 
Committee,  offers  in  evidence  the  whole  of  the  said 
Inaugural  Address,  both  the  first  and  second  editions,  and 
all  the  works  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D., 
quoted  therein,  in  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  this  case ; 
also  the  appendix  to  the  second  edition  of  said  Address, 
and  all  the  works  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
D.  D.,  quoted  therein,  in  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  this  case  ;  318 
the  whole  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  whole  of  the 
Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America. 

George  W.  F.  Birch,  D.  D., 
Joseph  J.  Lampe,  D.  D., 
Robert  P.  Sample,  D.  D., 
John  J.  Stevenson, 
John  J.  McCook, 

Prosecuting  Committee. 

It  was,  on  motion,  resolved  that  a  copy  of  these  Charges  330 
and  Specifications  be  served  on  Dr.  Briggs.     This  having 
been  done,  Dr.  Briggs  asked  for  the  time  allowed  by  the 
Book.     Whereupon  it  was  resolved  that  we  now  take  a 
recess,  to  meet  on  Monday,  the  27th,  at  2  p.  M. 

A  recess  was  now  taken. 

Concluded  with  prayer. 

The  minutes  were  read  and  approved. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Cleric. 


New  York,  28th  November. 

BRIGGS  CASE.  344 

Scotch  Church,  2  p.  m. 

After  a  recess  from  November  9th,  Presbytery  met  and 
was  constituted  with  prayer,  and  proceeded  to  consider 
the  case  of  Rev.  C.  A.  Briggs,  D.  D. 


80 

Present:  Ministers — John  C.  Bliss,  Mod.;  Geo.  Alex- 
ander, S.  D.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi,  Anson  P. 
Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Geo.  W.  F.  Birch, 
Robert  R.  Booth,  Samuel  Bowden,  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
Francis  Brown,  Walter  D.  Buchanan,  James  Chambers, 
Edward  L.  Clark,  Nathaniel  W.  Conkling,  Wilbur  F. 
Crafts,  John  B.  Devins,  Ira  S.  Dodd,  D.  Stuart  Dodge, 
Conrad  Doench,  William  Durant,  Thomas  Douglas, 
Howard  Duffield,  John  H.  Edwards,  Frank  F.  Ellinwood, 
Henry  B.  Elliot,  Wm.  T.  Elsing,  Charles  P.  Fagnani, 
Henry  M.  Field,  Walter  B.  Floyd,  Jesse  F.  Forbes, 
Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R.  Gillett,  Henri  Grandlienard, 
James  Hall,  A.  Woodruff  Halsey,  Wm.  R.  Harshaw, 
Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Spencer  L.  Hillier,  Edward  W. 
Hitchcock,  James  H.  Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  Sam.  W. 
Jackson,  A.  D.  Lawrence  Jewett,  Albert  B.  King,  A. 
Dunlop  King,  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  Sidney  G.  Law,  Theodore 
345  Leonhard,  Milton  S.  Littlefield,  John  C.  Lowrie,  Daniel 

E.  Lorenz,  Wm.  M.  Martin,  Charles  P.  Mallery,  Henry  T. 
McEwen,  James  H.  Mcllvaine,  Alex.  H.  McKinney,  Alex. 
McLean,  Duncan  J.  McMillan,  Horace  G.  Miller,  William 
L.  Moore,  James  C.  Nightingale,  Geo.  Nixon,  Israel  H. 
Northrup,  Daniel  H.  Overton,  Charles  H.  Parkhurst,  Levi 
H.  Parsons,  James  G.  Patterson,  John  R.  Paxton,  Wm. 
M.  Paxton,  Edward  P.  Payson,  Geo.  S.  Payson,  Geo.  L. 
Prentiss,  James  S.  Ramsey,  Daniel  Redmon,  Charles  S. 
Robinson,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  Albert  G.  Ruliffson,  Wm. 
A.  Rice,  Robert  F.  Sample,  Joseph  A.  Saxton,  Adolphus 

F.  Schauffler,  J.  Balcom  Shaw,  Geo.  L.  Shearer,  Wm.  G. 
T.  Shedd,  Andrew  Shiland,  David  G.  Smith,  Wilton  M. 
Smith,  John  M.  Stevenson,  Wm.  C.  Stitt,  Charles  A. 
Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sutton,  Alex.  W.  Sproull,  Geo.  L. 
Spining,  Charles  L.  Thompson,  John  J.  Thompson,  Charles 
L.  Tyndall,  Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Henry  Van  Dyke,  Marvin 
R.  Vincent,  Thomas  G.  Wall,  Abbott  L.  R.  Waite,  W. 
Scott  Watson,  Geo.  S.  Webster,  Erskine  N.  White, 
Gaylord  S.  White,  John  T.  Wilds,  Livingston  Willard, 
David  G.  Wylie,  Fred.  G.  Beebe,  Hugh  Pritchard,  Vincent 
Pisek. 


81 

Elders — Moses  P.  Brown,  Adams'  Memorial ;  James  346 
Tompkins,  Bethany ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux,  Brick  ;  A.  P. 
Keteham,  Calvary  ;  William  Mickens,  Central ;  Andrew 
Robinson,  Christ ;  James  McDowell,  East  Harlem ;  H. 
Edward  Rowland,  Fifth  Avenue  ;  Eugene  McJimpsey, 
First ;  John  McWilliam,  Fourth  ;  Geo.  E.  Sterry,  Fourth 
Avenue ;  Samuel  Reeve,  Fourteenth  Street ;  Samuel  H. 
Willard,  Harlem  ;  Joseph  Moorhead,  Knox  ;  Henry  D. 
Nicoll,  Madison  Avenue  ;  Charles  H.  Woodbury,  Madi- 
son Square  ;  Robert  Johnson,  First  Morrisania ;  G.  C. 
King,  North  ;  Henry  Q.  Hawle}T,  Park ;  James  E.  Ware, 
Phillips  ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  Riverdale  ;  Wm.  M.  On- 
derdonk,  Rutgers ;  Robert  Houston,  Scotch ;  John  Den- 
ham,  Sea  and  Land  ;  Wm.  R.  Worrall,  Thirteenth  Street ; 
Thomas  Bond,  University  Place ;  Robert  Gentle,  Union 
Tabernacle ;  Wm.  A.  Wheelock,  Washington  Heights ;  347 
Robert  Jafrray,  West ;  Clarence  P.  Leggett,  West  End  ; 
Alex.  Wilson,  West  Fifty-first  Street ;  Robert  Drummond, 
Westminster ;  James  Anderson,  Seventh  ;  W.  C.  Humbly, 
Mt.  Tabor ;  Geo.  C.  Lay,  Puritans  ;  James  L.  Birdsall, 
Spring  Street ;  C.  E.  Garey,  Tremont ;  John  Cepek, 
Bohemian. 

On  motion,  the  Committee  of  Arrangements  were  au- 
thorized to  give  such  persons  as  they  approve  copies  of 
the  stenographic  reports,  at  the  expense  of  the  applicants. 

The  Moderator,  Stated  Clerk  and  Rev.  Charles  R.  Gil- 
lette were  appointed  a  committee  to  supervise  the  official 
stenographer's  reports  of  the  proceedings. 

The  Moderator  charged  the  brethren  to  remember  that  348 
they  are  now  in  the  attitude  of  a  Court,  and  he  then  made 
the  following  statement,  viz.  :  In  view  of  certain  expres- 
sions of  opinions  which  have  come  to  me  from  sources 
both  religious  and  secular,  I  would  make  a  statement 
bearing  on  both  sides  of  the  case  now  before  us. 

1st.  As  to  the  action  and  spirit  of  the  defendant  and  his 
immediate  friend  or  friends,  respecting  the  interpretation 
of  the  law  and  methods  of  procedure  in  this  case.  In 
raising  the  questions  and  in  making  the  objections  which 
they  have  presented  here,  or  which  they  may  yet  present, 


82 

and  in  their  complaints  carrying  these  points  to  the  Synod, 
they  are  not  to  be  considered  as  desiring  merely  to  ob- 
struct the  progress  of  the  trial  on  its  merits,  or  to  act  in 
any  way  so  as  to  cause  needless  hindrance  or  delay.    In- 

349  stead  of  this  their  course  is  to  be  viewed  in  the  light  of 
the  strong  convictions  which  they  hold  against  some  of 
the  methods  pursued,  and  certain  decisions  made  in  this 
case  and  in  the  light  of  their  honest  desire  to  conserve 
great  and  important  principles  in  the  constitution  and 
government  of  our  Church. 

In  this  case  your  Moderator  is  thoroughly  convinced 
that  they  are  perfectly  conscientious  and  sincere. 

Then,  on  the  other  hand,  as  to  the  position,  purpose 
and  animus  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  your  Modera- 
tor is  as  thoroughly  convinced  that  they  are  not  in  that 
position,  because  they  have  sought  or  enjoy  it ;  that  their 
aim  is  not  that  of  mere  "heresy  hunters,"  and  that  they 
have  no  unkind  personal  feelings  whatever  toward  him 
who  has  been  arraigned  ;  but  they  are  just  acting  under 
the  obligatious  laid  upon  them  from  a  deep  sense  of  duty  to 
the  truth  and  to  the  Church ;  and  because  they  believe  that 
they  represent  a  very  large  portion  of  our  Church  in  a 
most  serious  and  earnest  feeling  of  alarm  over  the  effects 

350  of  the  views  set  forth  by  the  defendant,  and  in  this  course 
they  are  as  conscientious  and  sincere  as  the  defendant. 
Now,  of  this  view  of  both  sides  of  the  case,  I  would  have 
every  one  in  this  Court,  and  all  outside  of  it,  fully  assured. 

And  further,  let  me  avouch  the  confidence  that  every 
member  of  this  Court  will  endeavor  to  hold  his  judgment 
as  close  to  a  perfect  balance  as  possible  in  the  hearing  of 
this  whole  case,  so  that,  without  any  previous  bias,  he 
may  reach  the  decision  that  shall  be  most  just,  and  that 
therefore  there  be  all  effort  on  the  part  of  all  to  avoid 
raising  points  which  may  cause  unnecessary  discussion 
or  delay  in  the  conduct  of  our  proceedings. 

The  Moderator  then  stated  that  the  Amended  Charges 
and  Specifications  had  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  the 
defendant  at  the  last  meeting,  and  he  now  called  upon 
Dr.  Briggs  to  answer. 


83 

Whereupon  he  proceeded  to  file  preliminary  objections. 

The  Moderator  then  declared  that  the  next  step  was  to  351 
hear  from  the  other  party,  when  Dr.  Lampe,  of  the  Prose- 
cuting Committee,  was  heard. 

It  was  moved  that  Presbytery,  in  consideration  of  ob- 
jections offered  by  the  accused,  require  the  Committee  to 
amend  the  Charges  and  Specifications  by  striking  out 
Charges  IV.  and  VII. 

Pending  the  consideration  of  this  motion,  after  the 
approval  of  the  minutes  so  far  as  read,  and  after  prayer, 
Presbytery  took  a  recess. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 


Scotch  Church,  Tuesday,  Nov.  29,  2  p.  m. 
BRIGGS  CASE. 

After  recess  Presbytery    convened  and  was  opened 
with  prayer. 

Present :  Ministers — John  C.  Bliss,  Mod. ;  Geo.  Alex-  352 
ander,  S.  D.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi,  Anson  P. 
Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Frederick  G.  Beebe, 
Geo.  W.  P.  Birch,  Robert  R.  Booth,  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
Francis  Brown,  Samuel  Bowden,  Walter  D.  Buchanan, 
James  Chambers,  Edward  L.  Clark,  Nathaniel  W.  Conk- 
ling,  Wilbur  F.  Crafts,  John  B.  Devins,  Ira  S.  Dodd,  D. 
Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad  Doench,  Wm.  Durant,  Thomas 
Douglas,  Howard  Duffield,  John  H.  Edwards,  Frank  F. 
Ellinwood,  Henry  B.  Elliot,  Win.  T.  Elsing,  Charles  P. 
Fagnani,  Henry  M.  Field,  Walter  B.  Floyd,  Jesse  F. 
Forbes,  Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R.  Gillett,  Henri  L. 
Grandlienard,  James  Hall,  A.  Woodruff  Halsey,  Wm. 
R.  Harshaw,  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Spencer  L.  Hillier, 
Edward  W.  Hitchcock,  James  H.  Hoadley,  James  Hun- 
ter, Saml.  M.  Jackson,  Joseph  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B. 
King,  A.  Dunlop  King,  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  Sidney  G. 
Low,  Theodore  Leonhard,  Milton  S.  Littlefield,  John  C. 
Lowrie,  Daniel  E.  Lorenz,  William  M.  Martin,  Charles 


84 

P.  Mallery,  Alex.  II.  McKinney,  Alex.  McLean,  Duncan 
J.  McMillan,  Horace  G.  Miller,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  James  C. 
Nightingale,  Geo.  Nixon,  Israel  H.  Northrup,  Dan.  H. 
Overton,  Charles  II.  Parkhurst,  Levi  H.  Parsons,  James 
G.  Patterson,  John  R.  Paxton,  Wm.  M.  Paxton,  Edward 

353  P.  Payson,  Geo.  S.  Payson,  Vincent  Pisek,  Geo.  L. 
Prentiss,  Hugh  Pritchard,  James  S.  Ramsay,  Daniel 
Redmon,  Charles  S.  Robinson,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  Albert 
G.  Ruliffson,  Robert  F.  Sample,  Wm.  A.  Rice,  Joseph 
A.  Saxton,  Adolphus  F.  Schauffler,  J.  Balcom  Shaw, 
Geo.  L.  Shearer,  Wm.  G.  T.  Shedd,  Andrew  Shiland, 
David  G.  Smith,  Wilton  M.  Smith,  Wm.  C.  Stitt,  Charles 
A.  Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sutton,  Alex.  W.  Sproull,  Geo.  L. 
Spining,  Charles  L.  Thompson,  John  J.  Thompson, 
Charles  H.  Tyndall,  Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Henry  Van 
Dyke,  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  Frederick  E.  Voegelin,  Abbott 
L.  R.  Waite,  Thomas  G.  Wall,  W.  Scott  Watson,  Geo. 
S.  Webster,  Erskine  N.  White,  John  T.  Wilds,  Living- 
ston Willard,  David  G.  Wylie. 

Elders :  Moses  P.  Brown,  Adams  Memorial ;  James 
Tompkins,  Bethany  ;  John  Cepek,  Bohemian  ;  Albert  R. 
Ledoux,  Brick ;  A.  P.  Ketcham,  Calvary ;  Andrew 
Robinson,  Christ ;  Wm.   Mickens,   Central  ;  James  Mc- 

354  Dowell,  East  Harlem ;  H.  Edward  Rowland,  Fifth  Ave- 
nue ;  Eugene  McJimpsey,  First ;  John  McWilliam, 
Fourth ;  Geo.  E.  Sterry,  Fourth  A. venue ;  Saml.  Reeve, 
Fourteenth  Street;  Saml.  H.  Willard,  Harlem;  Joseph 
Moorhead,  Knox;  Henry  D.  Nicoll,  Madison  Avenue; 
Charles  H.  Woodbury,  Madison  Square ;  Robert  John- 
son, First  Morrisiana ;  G.  C.  King,  North ;  Henry  Q. 
Hawley,  Park ;  James  E.  Ware,  Phillips ;  Cleveland  H. 
Dodge,  Riverdale ;  Wm.  M.  Onderdonk,  Rutgers, 
Riverside  ;  Robert  Houston,  Scotch  ;  John  Denham,  Sea 
and  Land  ;  Wm.  R.  Worrall,  Thirteenth  Street ;  Thomas 
Bond,  University  Place ;  Robert  Gentle,  Union  Taber- 
nacle ;  Wm.  A.  Wheelock,  Washington  Heights ; 
Robert  Jaffray,  West ;  Clarence  P.  Leggett,  West  End  ; 
Alex.  Wilson,  West  Fifty-first  Street ;  Richard  Drum- 
mond,  Westminster ;  James  L.  Birdsall,  Spring  Street ; 


85 

James    Anderson,    Seventh ;  Wm.   C.   Humbly,    Mount  355 
Tabor;  Caleb  E.  Garey,  Tremont ;  Greo.  E.  Lay,  Puri- 
tans. 

The  resolution  pending  at  the  close  of  the  last  meeting 
was  then  taken  up  and  Mr.  McCook,  of  the  Prosecuting 
Committee,  was  heard. 

At  this  point  Dr.  Briggs  wished  the  following  objections 
recorded,  viz. :  That  the  Prosecuting  Committee  were 
heard  yesterday  in  response  to  his  objections  and  the 
Committee  is  now  being  heard  again  without  his  consent. 

A  motion  to  lay  the  pending  resolution  on  the  table 
was  lost  by  a  vote  of  47  to  67. 

At  this  point  the  resolution  was  divided  in  order  to  take 
action  respecting  Charges  IV.  and  VII.  separately. 

The  resolution  requiring  the  Committee  to  strike  out 
Charge  IV.  was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  70  to  49. 

The  Committee  of  Prosecution  take  exception  and  ask  356 
to  have  entered  upon  the  record  an  exception  to  the 
action  of  the  Presbytery  in  requiring  the  Committee  to 
amend  the  Charges  and  Specifications  by  striking  out 
Charge  IV. 

The  resolution  to  require  the  Committee  to  strike  out 
Charge  VII.  was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  74  to  54. 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  take  exception  and  ask  to 
have  entered  upon  the  record  an  exception  to  the  action 
of  the  Presbytery  in  requiring  the  Committee  to  amend 
the  Charges  and  Specifications  by  striking  out  Charge 
VII. 

It  was  resolved  that  when  Presbytery  convene  to- 
morrow, we  proceed  at  once  to  take  up  the  objections  in 
their  order. 

The  minutes  were  read  and  approved. 

Presbytery  now  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow  at  2  p.  m. 

Concluded  with  prayer. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 


86 
New  York,  30th  November,  1892. 

357  BRIGGS  CASE. 

Scotch  Church,  Wednesday,  Nov.  30,  2  p.  m. 

Presbytery  convened  after  recess  and  was  opened  with 
prayer. 

Present :  Ministers — John  C.  Bliss,  Moderator  ;  Geo. 
Alexander,  Saml.  D.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi,  Anson 
P.  Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Frederick  G. 
Beebe,  Geo.  W.  F.  Birch,  Nicholas  Bjerring,  Robert  R. 
Booth,  Saml.  Bowden,  Thomas  S.  Bradner,  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  Francis  Brown,  Walter  D.  Buchanan,  James 
Chambers,  Edward  L.  Clark,  Nathaniel  W.  Conkling, 
Wilbur  F.  Crafts,  John  B.  Devins,  Ira  S.  Dodd,  D.  Stuart 
Dodge,  Conrad  Doench,  William  Durant,  Howard  Duffield, 
John  H.  Edwards,  Frank  F.  Ellinwood,  Henry  B.  Elliott, 
Wm.  T.  Elsing,  Charles  P.  Fagnani,  Henry  M.  Field, 
Walter  B.  Floyd,  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford,  Charles 
R.  Gillett,  Henri  Grandlienard,  James  Hall,  A.  Woodruff 
Halsey,  Wm.  R.  Harshaw,  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Edward 
W.  Hitchcock,  James  H.  Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  Saml. 
M.  Jackson,  Joseph  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B.  King,  A.  Dunlap 
King,  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  Sidney  G.  Law,  Theodore  Leon- 

358  hard,  Wilton  S.  Littlefield,  John  C.  Lowrie,  Daniel  E. 
Lorenz,  Wm.  M.  Martin,  Charles  P.  Mallery,  Francis  H. 
Marling,  Henry  T.  McEwen,  James  H.  Mcllvaine,  Alex. 
H.  McKinney,  Alex.  McLean,  Duncan  J.  McMillaD, 
Horace  G.  Miller,  Geo.  J.  Mingins,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  James 
C.  Nightingale,  Geo.  Nixon,  Israel  H.  Northrup,  Daniel 
H.  Overton,  Charles  H.  Parkhurst,  Levi  H.  Parsons, 
James  G.  Patterson,  John  R.  Paxton,  Edward  P.  Payson, 
Geo.  S.  Payson,  George  L.  Prentiss,  Hugh  Pritchard, 
James  S.  Ramsay,  Daniel  Redmon,  Charles  S.  Robinson, 
Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  Albert  G.  Ruliffson,  William  A.  Rice, 
Robert  F.  Sample,  Joseph  A.  Saxton,  Adolphus  F. 
Schauffler,  J.  Balcom  Shaw,  Geo.  L.  Shearer,  Wm.  G.  T. 
Shedd,  Andrew  Shiland,  David  G.  Smith,  Wilton  M. 


87 

Smith,  Wm.  C.  Stitt,  Charles  A.  Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sut- 
ton, Alex.  W.  Sproull,  Geo.  L.  Spining,  Charles  L. 
Thompson,  John  J.  Thompson,  Charles  H.  Tyndall,  Henry 
M.  Tyndall,  Henry  Van  Dyke,  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  Fred- 
erick E.  Voegelin,  Thomas  G.  Wall,  Abbott  L.  R.  Waite, 
W.  Scott  Watson,  Geo.  S.  Webster,  Erskine  1ST.  White, 
John  T.  Wilds,  Livingston  Willard,  David  G.  Wylie. 

Elders — Moses  P.  Brown,  Adams  Memorial ;  James  359 
Tompkins,  Bethany ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux,  Brick ;  A.  P. 
Ketcham,  Calvary ;  Wm.  Mickens,  Central ;  Andrew- 
Robinson,  Christ ;  James  McDowell,  East  Harlem ;  H. 
Edward  Rowland,  Fifth  Avenue ;  Eugene  McJimpsey, 
First ;  John  McWilliam,  Fourth  ;  Geo.  E.  Sterry,  Fourth 
Avenue ;  Saml.  Reeve,  Fourteenth  Street ;  Saml.  H. 
Willnrd,  Harlem  ;  Joseph  Moorhead,  Knox ;  Henry  D. 
Nicoll,  Madison  Avenue  ;  Charles  H.  Woodbury,  Madison 
Square  ;  Robert  Johnson,  Morrisania  First ;  G.  C.  King, 
North  ;  Henry  Q.  Hawley,  Park ;  James  E.  Ware,  Phil- 
lips ;  Geo.  C.  Lay,  Puritans  ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  River- 
dale  ;  Wm.  M.  Onderdonk,  Rutgers,  etc.  ;  Robert  Hous- 
ton, Scotch ;  James  Anderson,  Seventh ;  James  L. 
Birdsall,  Spring  Street;  Wm.  R.  Worrell,  Thirteenth  360 
Street ;  Caleb  E.  Garey,  Tremont ;  Thomas  Bond,  Univer- 
sity Place ;  Robert  Gentle,  Union  Tabernacle ;  Wm.  A. 
Wheelock,  Washington  Heights  ;  Robert  Jaffray,  West ; 
Clarence  P.  Leggett,  West  End  ;  Alexr.  Wilson,  West 
Fifty-first  Street ;  Richd.  Drummond,  Westminster. 

The  resolution  offered  at  the  close  of  the  session  yester- 
day afternoon,  to  proceed  at  once  to  take  up  the  objec- 
tions in  their  order,  was  taken  up. 

The  first  objection  of  Dr.  Briggs  to  the  charges  and 
specifications  was  not  sustained. 

The  second  objection  of  Dr.  Briggs  to  the  charges  and 
specifications  was  not  sustained. 

Dr.  Briggs  reserved  his  rights  (page  251  in  the  steno- 
grapher's report)  to  apply  them  to  the  specific  charges. 

It  was,  on  motion,  resolved  that  without  sustaining  the  361 
general  objection  to  the  relevancy  of  the  proofs  from 


88 

Scripture,  catechisms  and  confession,  the  Presbytery- 
direct  the  transference  of  these  proofs  from  the  specifica- 
tions to  the  charges. 

A  division  of  the  house  being  called  for,  the  above 
resolution  was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  71  to  56. 

The  Committee  of  Prosecution  took  exception,  and 
asked  to  have  entered  upon  the  record  an  exception  to 
the  action  of  the  Presbytery  in  directing  the  transference 
of  the  proofs  from  Scripture,  catechisms  and  confession 
from  the  specifications  to  the  charges. 

It  was  moved,  that  in  view  of  the  fifth  objection  of  the 
defendant  that  the  last  paragraph  of  the  amended 
charges  from  the  words  "  The  Presbyterian  Church,  etc." 
at  the  bottom  of  page  35  be  stricken  out.  It  was  then 
moved    to    amend    the    resolution    by    instructing   the 

362  Committee  to  amend  the  last  clause  of  the  Charges  by 
stating  what  portion  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  works  of 
Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  and  the  Standards  they 
intend  to  present  as  evidence  in  the  case. 

This  amendment  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  23  to  84. 

The  resolution  being  voted  upon  was  lost.  The  ayes 
and  noes  being  called  for,  the  resolution  was  lost  by  the 
following  68  persons  in  the  affirmative,  and  the  following 
70  persons  in  the  negative  : 

Ministers  :  Aye — Geo.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi, 
Anson  P.  Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Frederick 
G.  Beebe,  Francis  Brown,  James  Chambers,  Edward  L. 
Clark,  Ira  S.  Dodd,  D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Wm.  Durant,  John 
H.  Edwards,  Frank  F.  Ellinwood,  Wm.  T.  Elsing,  Charles 
P.  Fagnani,  Henry  M.  Field,  Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R. 
Gillett,  Henri  L.  Grandlienard,  Wm.  R.  Harshaw,  Thomas 
S.  Hastings,  Edward  W.  Hitchcock,  James  H.  Hoadley, 
James  Hunter,  Saml.  M.  Jackson,  Milton  S.  Littlefield, 
Danl.   E.  Lorenz,  Wm.  M.  Martin,  Francis  H.  Marling, 

363  Henry  T.  McEwen,  James  H.  Mcllvaine,  Duncan 
McMillan,  Geo.  J.  Mingins,  Daniel  H.  Overton,  Charles 
H.  Parkhurst,  Geo.  S.  Payson,  Geo.  L.  Prentiss,  James 
S.  Ramsay,  Daniel  Redmon,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  Albert 


89 

G.  Ruliffson,  Wm.  A.  Rice,  Joseph  A.  Saxton,  Philip 
Schaff,  J.  Balcom  Shaw,  David  G.  Smith,  Wilton  M. 
Smith,  Geo.  L.  Spining,  Charles  L.  Thompson,  Henry 
Van  Dyke,  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  Geo.  S.  Webster — 52. 

Elders:  Aye— Moses  P.  Brown,  Albert  L.  Ledoux, 
Wm.  Mickens,  Saml.  Reeve,  Charles  H.  Woodbury, 
Robert  Johnson,  G.  C.  King,  Henry  Q.  Hawley,  James  E. 
Ware,  Geo.  C.  Lay,  Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  Thomas  Bond, 
Robert  Gentle,  Wm.  A.  Wheelock,  Robert  Jaffray, 
Clarence  P.  Leggett — 16. 

Ministers:  Nay — Sam'l  D.  Alexander,  Nicholas 
Bjerring,  Robert  R.  Booth,  Samuel  Bowden,  Thomas  S. 
Bradner,  Walter  D.  Buchanan,  Nathaniel  W.  Conkling, 
Wilbur  F.  Crafts,  Conrad  Doench,  Thomas  Douglas, 
Howard  Duffield,  Henry  B.  Elliot,  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  James 
Hall,  A.  Woodruff  Halsey,  Joseph  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B. 
King,  Alex.  D.  King,  Sidney  G.  Low,  Theodore 
Leonhard,  John  C.  Lowrie,  Charles  P.  Mallery,  Alexander  364 
McLean,  Horace  G.  Miller,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  James  C. 
Nightingale,  George  Nixon,  Israel  H.  Northrup,  Levi  H. 
Parsons,  James  G.  Patterson,  Edward  P.  Payson,  Hugh 
Pritchard,  Charles  S.  Robinson,  Adolphus  F.  Schauffler, 
George  L.  Shearer,  Win.  G.  T.  Shedd,  Andrew  Shiland, 
Wm.  C.  Stitt,  Charles  A.  Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sutton, 
Alex.  W.  Sproull,  John  J.  Thompson,  Henry  M.  Tyndall, 
Frederick  E.  Voegelin,  Thomas  G.  Wall,  Abbott  L.  R. 
Waite,  W.  Scott  Watson,  Erskine  N.  White,  John  T. 
Wilds,  Livingston  Willard,  David  G.  Wylie,  Walter  B. 
Floyd— 52. 

Elders:  Nay— James  Tompkins,  A.  P.  Ketcham, 
Andrew  Robinson,  James  McDowell,  H.  Edwards 
Rowland,  Eugene  McJimpsey,  John  McWilliam,  Geo. 
E.  Sterry,  Samuel  H.  Willard,  Joseph  Moorhead,  Henry 
D.  Nicoll,  Wm.  M.  Onderdonk,  Robert  Houston,  James 
Anderson,  James  L.  Birdsall,  William  R.  Worrall, 
Caleb  E.  Garey,  Richard  Drummond — 18. 

Dr.  Briggs  gave  notice  of  an  exception  and  notice  of  an 
appeal  and  complaint. 


90 

365  It  was  resolved  that  the  sessions  of  Presbytery  here- 
after close  on  Thursday  afternoon  instead  of  on  Friday 
as  in  the  original  motion. 

The  minutes  were  read  and  approved  as  far  as  written. 
Presbytery  now  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow  at  2  p.  m. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 


Scotch  Church,  December  1st,  2  p.  m. 
BRIGGS  CASE. 

Presbytery  convened  after  recess  and  was  opened  with 
prayer. 

Present:  Ministers — John  C. Bliss,  Mod'r  ;  Geo.  Alex- 
ander, Saml.  D.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi,  Anson  P. 
Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Wm.  H.  Beach, 
Frederick  G.  Beebe,  Geo.  W.  F.  Birch,  Nicholas  Bjerring, 
Robert  R.  Booth,  Samuel  Bowden,  Thomas  S.  Bradner, 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  Francis  Brown,  Walter  D.  Buchanan, 
James  Chambers,  Edward  L.  Clark,  Nathl.  W.  Conkling, 
Wilbur  F.  Crafts,  John  B.  Devins,  Ira  S.  Dodd,  D.  Stuart 
Bodge,  Conrad  Doench,  Wm.  Durant,  Thomas  Douglas, 
Howard  Duffield,  John  H.  Edwards,  Frank  F.  Ellinwood, 
366  Henry  B.  Elliot,  Wm.  T.  Elsing,  Charles  P.  Fagnani, 
Henry  M.  Field,  Walter  B.  Floyd,  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Her- 
bert Ford,  Charles  R.  Gillett,  Henri  L.  Grandlienard, 
James  Hall,  A.  Woodruff  Halsey,  Wm.  R.  Harshaw, 
Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Edward  W.  Hitchcock,  James  H. 
Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  Samuel  M.  Jackson,  Joseph  H. 
Kerr,  Albert  B.  King,  Alex.  D.  King,  Jos.  J.  Lampe, 
Sidney  G.  Law,  Theodore  Leonhard,  Milton  S.  Littlefield, 
John  C.  Lowrie,  Daniel  E.  Lorenz,  William  M.  Martin, 
Charles  P.  Mallery,  Francis  H.  Marling,  Henry  T. 
McEwen,  James  H.  Mcllvaine,  Alex.  McKinney,  Alex. 
McLean,  Duncan  J.  McMillan,  Horace  G.  Miller,  Geo.  J. 
Mingins,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  James  C.  Nightingale,  Geo. 
Nixon,  Israel  H.  Northrup,  Daniel  H.  Overton,  Charles 
H.  Parkhurst,  Levi  Parsons,  James  G.  Patterson,  John 
R.  Paxton,  Wm.  M.  Paxton,  Edward  P.  Payson,  Geo. 


91 

S.  Payson,  Geo.  L.  Prentiss,  Hugh  Pritchard,  James  S. 
Ramsay,  Daniel  Redmon,  Charles  S.  Robinson,  Stealy  B. 
Rossiter,  Albert  G.  Ruliffson,  Wm.  A.  Rice,  Robert  F. 
Sample,  Joseph  Sanderson,  Joseph  A.  Saxton,  Philip 
Schaff,  Adolphus  F.  Schauffler,  J.  Balconi  Shaw,  Geo. 
L.  Shearer,  Wm.  G.  T.  Shedd,  Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton 
M.  Smith,  Wm.  C.  Stitt,  Charles  A.  Stoddard,  J.  Ford 
Sutton,  Alex.  W.  Sproull,  Geo.  L.  Spining,  Charles  L. 
Thompson,  John  J.  Thompson,  Charles  H.  Tyndall,  357 
Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  Frederick  E. 
Voegelin,  Thomas  G.  Wall,  Abbott  L.  R.  Waite,  W. 
Scott  Watson,  Geo.  S.  Webster,  Erskine  N.  White,  John 
T.  Wilds,  Livingston  Willard,  David  G.  Wylie. 

Elders— Moses  P.  Brown,  Adams  Memorial ;  James 
Tompkins,  Bethany ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux,  Brick ;  A.  P. 
Ketcham,  Calvary ;  Wm.  Mickens,  Central ;  James 
McDowell,  East  Harlem;  H.  Edwards  Row]and,  Fifth 
Avenue  ;  Eugene  McJimpsey,  First ;  John  Mc William, 
Fourth  ;  Geo.  E.  Sterry,  Fourth  Avenue  ;  Samuel  Reeve, 
Fourteenth  Street ;  Samuel  H.  Willard,  Harlem  ;  Joseph 
Moorhead,  Knox  ;  Henry  D.  Nicoll,  Madison  Avenue  ; 
Charles  H.  Woodbury,  Madison  Square ;  Robert  John- 
son, Morrisania  First ;  Thomas  Anderson,  New  York  ; 
G.  C.  King,  North ;  Henry  Q.  Hawley,  Park  ;  James  E. 
Ware,  Phillips  ;  Geo.  C.  Lay,  Puritans ;  Cleveland  H.  368 
Dodge,  Riverdale ;  Wm.  M.  Onderdonk,  Rutgers  ;  Robert 
Houston,  Scotch ;  James  L.  Birdsall,  Spring  Street ; 
James  Anderson,  Seventh ;  Caleb  E.  Garey,  Tremont ; 
Thomas  Bond,  University  ;  Robert  Gentle,  Union  Taber- 
nacle ;  Wm.  A.  Wheelock,  Washington  Heights ;  Robert 
Jaffray,  West ;  Clarence  P.  Leggett,  West  End  ;  Alex. 
Wilson,  West  Fifty-first  Street ;  Richard  Drummond, 
Westminster. 

The  objections  of  Dr.  Briggswere  again  taken  up,  when 
it  was  resolved  that  in  view  of  the  conditional  waiver 
made  by  the  defendant,  Presbytery,  Presbytery  without 
passing  upon  his  objection  to  Charges  I.,  II.,  III.,  V.  and 
VI.,  rules  that  in  taking  the  vote,  each  of  the  items  in 


92 

those  charges  as  indicated  by  numerals  in  the  objections 
filed,  shall  be  voted  upon  separately. 

369  The  Committee  of  Prosecution  take  exception  and  ask 
to  have  entered  upon  the  record  an  exception  to  the  ac- 
tion of  the  Presbytery  in  view  of  the  conditional  waiver 
made  by  the  defendant,  Presbytery,  without  passing  upon 
his  objections  to  Charges  I.,  II.,  III.,  V.  and  VI.,  rules 
that  in  taking  the  vote  each  of  the  items  in  those  Charges 
as  indicated  by  numerals  in  the  objections  filed,  shall  be 
voted  upon  separately. 

It  was  then  resolved  that  the  proceedings  are  found  in 
order,  and  that  the  Charges  and  Specifications  in  their 
amended  form  be  considered  sufficient  to  put  the  accused 
on  his  defense. 

Whereupon  Dr.  Briggs  was  called  upon  to  plead  guilty 
or  not  guilty. 

He  pleaded  not  guilty. 

The  accused  then  waived  the  notice  of  testimony  under 
Section  23  of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  then  took  up  the  case,  and 
put  in  evidence  pamphlets  marked  A  and  B,  being  the 

370  1st  and  2d  editions  of  the  Inaugural  Address,  and  the 
Preface  and  Appendix  to  the  2d  edition  ;  and  all  the 
works  of  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  quoted 
therein,  in  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  this  case,  the  whole 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  whole  of  the  Standards  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

Here  the  Prosecution  rested  its  evidence. 

It  was  resolved  that  the  evidence  offered  by  the  Prose- 
cution be  considered  competent. 

Dr.  Briggs  then  gave  notice  of  an  exception  and  appeal. 

It  was  resolved  that  we  take  recess  until  Monday  after- 
noon next  at  2  p.  m. 

After  the  reading  and  approval  of  the  minutes  so  far  as 
written,  and  prayer,  Presbytery  took  recess  as  above. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 


93 
New  York,  5th  December,  1892.  371 

BRIGGS  CASE. 
Scotch  Church,  Monday,  5,  2  p.  m. 

After  recess   Presbytery  met    and  was  opened  with 
prayer. 

Present:  Ministers— John  C.  Bliss,  Mod'r;  Geo.  Alex- 
ander, Saml.  I).  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi,  Anson  P. 
Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Frederick  G.  Beebe, 
Geo.  W.  F.  Birch,  Nicholas  Bjerring,  Robert  R.  Booth, 
Thomas  S.  Bradner,  Charles  A.  Briggs,  Francis  Brown, 
Walter  Buchanan,  James  Chambers,  Edward  L.  Clark, 
Nathaniel  W.  Conkling,  John  B.  Devins,  Ira  S.  Dodd, 
D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad  Doench,  William  Durant, 
Thomas  Douglas,  Howard  Duffield,  John  H.  Edwards, 
Frank  F.  Ellinwood,  Henry  B.  Elliot,  Wm.  T.  Elsing, 
Charles  P.  Fagnani,  Henry  M.  Field,  Walter  B.  Floyd, 
Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R.  Gillett,  Henri 
L.  Grandlienard,  James  Hall,  A.  Woodruff  Halsey,  Wm. 
R.  Harshaw,  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Edward  W.  Hitchcock, 
James  H.  Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  Saml.  M.  Jackson,  A. 
D.  Lawrence  Jewett,  Joseph  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B.  King,  A. 
Dunlop  King,  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  Sidney  G.  Law,  Theo- 
dore Leonhard,  Milton  S.  Littlefield,  John  C.  Lowrie,  372 
Daniel  E.  Lorenz,  Wm.  M.  Martin,  Charles  P.  Mallery, 
Francis  H.  Marling,  Henry  T.  McEwen,  Alex.  H.  McKin- 
ney,  Alex.  McLean,  Duncan  J.  McMillan,  Horace  G. 
Miller,  Geo.  J.  Mingins,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  James  C.  Night- 
ingale, Geo.  Nixon,  Israel  H.  Northrup,  Daniel  H.  Over- 
ton, Charles  H.  Parkhurst,  Levi  H.  Parsons,  James  G. 
Patterson,  Edward  P.  Payson,  Vincent  Pisek,  George  L. 
Prentiss,  Hugh  Pritchard,  James  S.  Ramsay,  Daniel 
Redmon,  Charles  S.  Robinson,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  Albert 
G.  Ruliffson,  Wm.  A.  Rice,  Robert  F.  Sample,  Joseph 
Sanderson,  Joseph  A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  Adolphus 
Schauffler,  J.  Balcom  Shaw,  Geo.  L.  Shearer,  Wm.  G.  T. 
Shedd,  Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton  M.  Smith,  Wm.  C.  Stitt, 
Charles  A.  Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sutton,  Alex.  W.  Sproull, 


94 

Geo.  L.  Spining,  Charles  L.  Thompson,  John  J.  Thomp- 
son, Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Henry  Yan  Dyke,  Marvin  R.  Vin- 
cent, Frederick  E.  Voegelin,  A.  L.  R.  Waite,  W.  Scott 
Watson,  Geo.  S.  Webster,  Erskine  N.  White,  John  T. 
Wilds,  Livingston  Willard,  David  G.  Wylie. 

373  Elders — Moses  P.  Brown,  Adams  Memorial ;  Albert  R. 
Ledoux,  Brick  ;  A.  P.  Ketcham,  Calvary  ;  Wm.  Mickens, 
Central ;  Andrew  Robinson,  Christ ;  James  McDowell, 
East  Harlem ;  H.  Edwards  Rowland,  Fifth  Avenue ; 
Eugene  McJimpsey,  First ;  John  Mc  William,  Fourth  ; 
Geo.  E.  Sterry,  Fourth  Avenue  ;  Saml.  Reeve,  Fourteenth 
Street ;  Samuel  H.  Willard,  Harlem ;  Joseph  Moor- 
head,  Knox  ;  Henry  D.  Nicoll,  Madison  Avenue  ;  Charles 
H.  Woodbury,  Madison  Square ;  Robert  Johnson,  Mor- 
risania  First ;  Thomas  Anderson,  New  York  ;  Gerardus 
C.  King,  North  ;  Henry  Q.  Hawley,  Park ;  James  E. 
Ware,  Phillips  ;  Geo.  C.  Lay,  Puritans ;  Cleveland  H. 
Dodge,  Riverside ;  Wm.  M.  Onderdonk,  Rutgers  R. ; 
Robert   Houston,   Scotch ;    James    Anderson,    Seventh ; 

374  James  L.  Birdsall,  Spring  Street ;  Wm.  R.  Worrall, 
Thirteenth  Street ;  Clarence  E.  Garey,  Tremont ;  Thomas 
Bond,  University ;  Robert  Gentle,  Union  Tabernacle ; 
Wm.  A.  Wheelock,  Washington  Heights ;  Robert  Jaf- 
fray,  West ;  CI.  P.  Leggett,  West  End ;  Alex.  Wilson, 
West  Fifty-first  Street ;  Richard  Drummond,  West- 
minster. 

The  Committee  of  Prosecution  was  permitted  to  intro- 
duce the  following  additional  evidence  : 

(1)  The  Inaugural  Address,  3d  Edition,  by  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.  D. 

(2)  Newman's  Apologia  pro  vita  sua,  pages  1  and  4  in 
volume  marked  D. 

(3)  Martineau's  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion.  Book  I., 
Chapter  1  and  2.  Book  II.,  Chapter  2  ;  Book  IV.,  Chap- 
ter 2,  in  volume  marked  E. 

(4)  The  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 

375  United  States  of  America,  marked  F. 

(5)  The  Holy  Bible,  marked  G. 


95 

(6)  Messianic  Prophecy,  by  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D., 
marked  H  (1). 

(7)  Biblical  Study,  by  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  marked 
H  (2). 

(8)  Whither,  by  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  marked  H  (3). 

Dr.  Briggs  then  introduced  his  evidence  as  follows : 

(1)  I  offer  in  evidence  the  whole  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  in  the  following  texts 
and  versions,  (a)  The  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Theile'  s  editions,  (b)  The  Septuagint  version  of  the  Old 
Testament,  Sweet's  edition,  (c)  The  Greek  text  of  the 
New  Testament,  edition  of  Westcott  &  Hort.  (d)  The  re- 
vised English  versions  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

(e)     The    authorized    version,    the    variorum    reference  376 
edition.   I  submit  these,  without  reading,  according  to  the 
ruling  of  Presbytery. 

(2)  I  offer  in  evidence  the  Standards  of  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  in  the  amended 
edition,  published  by  the  Presbyterian  Board  of  Publica- 
tion, 1891. 

I  submit  these,  without  reading,  according  to  the  ruling 
of  the  Presbytery,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  passages 
which  I  shall  now  read.  The  Westminster  Confession, 
I,  i.,  4,  5,  6,  7 ;  X,  I ;  XIII.,  1 ;  XVIIL,  1,  2 ;  XX.,  2 ; 
XXV.,  3;  XXVIL,  3;  Larger  Catechism,  Qaes.  90; 
Shorter  Catechism,  Ques.  2  ;  Book  of  Discipline,  Sec.  1. 

(3)  I  shall  offer  in  evidence  the  Inaugural  Address  as 
published  in  the  first  edition,  with  accompanying  docu- 
ments, under  the  title  "The  Edward  Robinson  Chair  of 
Biblical  Theology,"  as  published  in  the  second  edition 
with  an  appendix,  and  as  published  in  a  third  and  fourth 
edition  with  appendices,  all  under  the  title  "  The  Author- 
ity of  Holy  Scripture." 

I  beg  leave  to  put  a  copy  of  the  third  edition  of  these 
documents  in  the  hands  of  every  member  of  the  Court,  in 
place  of  reading  them,  except  so  far  as  the  following 
extracts,  which  I  shall  now  read,  in  order  to  put  the  377 
citations  made  by  the  Prosecution  in  the  light  of  their 


96 

context.  I  shall  read  p.  4-6 ;  p.  10.  I  ask  the  Court  to 
read  especially  23-29,  32-36,  52,  55.  I  shall  read  from 
the  appendices  85-89,  111. 

(4)  I  offer  in  evidence  the  following  official  documents 
in  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  this  case. 

(a)  The  Confession  of  Faith,  together  with  the  Larger 
and  Lesser  Catechisms  composed  by  the  reverend  assem- 
bly of  divines  sitting  at  Westminster  ;  edition  of  1658. 

(b)  The  Minutes  of  the  Sessions  of  the  Westminster 
Assembly,  Nov.,  1644,  to  March,  1649,  edited  for  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  with  an  introduction 
by  A.  F.  Mitchell,  Edinburgh,  1874. 

(c)  The  Records  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  published  by  Presbyterian 
Board  of  Publication. 

(d)  The  Minutes  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  1789-1892. 

(e)  The  Minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York. 

(/)  The  stenographical  report  of  the  meeting  of  Presby- 
tery, Oct.  5th,  1891. 

(g)  The  stenographical  report  of  the  meeting  of  Presby- 
tery of  New  York,  Nov.  4th,  1891. 
378      (h)  Stenographical  report  of  the  Sessions  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  at  Portland,  May  26-30,  1892. 

(i)  The  Creeds  of  Christendom,  by  Dr.  Schaff. 

I  submit  these  documents,  without  reading,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  ruling  of  the  Presbytery,  with  the  exception 
of  the  following  extracts  which  I  shall  read  to  the  Court 
at  this  time.  Read  extract  from  the  Minutes  of  Presby- 
tery, Oct.  5th,  1891,  as  given  in  the  Case,  pp.  135, 137. 

(5)  Inasmuch  as  the  Prosecution  have  put  in  evidence 
all  the  works  of  Dr.  Briggs  quoted  in  the  first  and  second 
editions  of  the  Inaugural  Address,  so  far  as  they  "bear 
upon  this  case,"  the  defendant  puts  in  all  the  works  of 
Dr.  Briggs  "  in  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  this  case."  These 
are  put  in  evidence,  without  reading,  in  accordance  with 
the  ruling  of  the  Presbytery,  save  the  following  testi- 
mony, which  I  shall  read  at  the  present  time. 


97 

(a)  Address  on  the  occasion  of  his  inauguration  as 
Davenport  professor  of  Hebrew  and  the  cognate  languages  379 
in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  October,  1876.  (Read 
pp.  6,  7,  15,  16.) 

(b)  Article  in  the  Presbyterian  Review,  1881,  on  the 
right,  duty  and  limits  of  Biblical  criticism,  pp.  242,  243, 
138. 

(c)  Article  on  Biblical  Theology  in  the  Presbyterian 
Review,  1882,  pp.  516-527,  which  was  taken  up  into  Bibli- 
cal study  in  1884  as  Chapter  XI.,  pp.  387,  404. 

(d)  The  Holy  Scriptures  a  means  of  grace. 

Address  before  the  Sunday  School  Teachers  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  in  1883,  repeated  before  the 
Reformed  Theological  Seminary  at  Lancaster  and  pub- 
lished as  Chapter  XII.  of  Biblical  Study  in  1884.  (Read 
pp.  411,  412,  416,  417.) 

(e)  Article  on,  A  Critical  Study  of  the  History  of  the 
Higher  Criticism,  in  the  Presbyterian  Review,  1883. 
(Read  pp.  129,  130.) 

(f)  Address  at  the  beginning  of  the  term   of  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  September,  1883,  in  Interpretation  330 
of  Holy   Scripture,   published  as  Chap.   10  of  Biblical 
Study  in  1884.     (Read  pp.  359,  355,  356.) 

(g)  Biblical  Study,  first  edition  1884,  second,  third  and 
fourth  editions  in  subsequent  years.  (Read  pp.  136,  137, 
222,  227,  228,  240,  241.) 

(7i)  American  Presbyterianism,  published  in  1885.  (Read 
pp.  9,  10.) 

(i)  Messianic  Prophecy,  published  in  1886.  (Read  pp. 
67,  192,  408.) 

(J)  Whither,  published  in  1889,  second  and  third  edi- 
tions, 1890.     (Read  pp.  11,  285-287.) 

(k)  Article,  Redemption  after  Death,  in  the  Magazine 
of  Christian  Literature,  Dec,  1889  (pp.  112, 114). 

(I)  The  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason,  1891,  con- 
sisting of  an  address  at  the  opening  of  the  term  of  the 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  September  19,  1889,  on 
Biblical  History  ;  an  address  delivered  at  Wellesley  Col- 
lege, and  before  the  American  Institute  of  Sacred  Litera-  381 


98 

ture,  at  Chicago,  on  the  Messianic  Ideal,  in  1890,  and 
several  lectures  delivered  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and 
elsewhere,  in  order  to  set  forth  the  defendant' s  views  of 
the  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason,  in  1891.  (Read 
pp.  63,  64,  115, 117.) 

I  beg  leave  to  put  a  copy  of  this  volume  in  the  hands 
of  every  member  of  the  Presbytery  and  to  ask  them  to 
read  it  as  an  exposition  of  the  Inaugural  for  the  people 
in  the  matter  included  in  the  title. 

Other  passages  will  be  read  in  the  argument  for  the 
defense. 

(6)  I  put  in  evidence  all  the  authorities  cited  in  my 
writings  "in  so  far  as  they  bear  upon  this  case,"  and  es- 
pecially the  following : 

The  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  Vindicated, 
1765. 

Eight    letters    of   Antony    Tuckney     and    Benjamin 
Whichcote,  London,  1755. 
382       Wm.  G.  T.  Shedd,  Dogmatic  Theology,  1888. 

Orders  and  Regulations  for  Field  Officers  of  the  Salva- 
tion Army,  London,  1891. 

Ball,  Treatise  of  Faith,  1837. 

Martineau'  s  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion. 

Westcott' s  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  of  John  New- 
man's Apologia. 

A.  A.  Hodge  and  B.  B.  Warfield,  Article,  Inspiration, 
in  Presbyterian  Review,  Vol.  II. 

John  Wallis,  Sermons,  London,  1791. 

Schaff,  Church  History,  The  German  Reformation, 
1888. 

Lyford,  Plain  Man's  Senses  Exercised,  1655. 

Best,  Commentary  on  Galatians. 

Schaff,  Commentary  on  Galatians. 

Lechler,  Commentary  on  Acts. 

Evans  and  Smith,  Inspiration  and  Inerrancy,  new  edi- 
tion, 1892. 

Alexander,  Commentary  on  Acts. 

Delitzsch,  Commentary  on  Genesis,  new  edition,  1887. 

A.  B.  Davidson,  Commentary  on  Job,  1884. 


99 

Delitzsch,  Commentary  on  Ecclesiastes,  1875. 

Kirkpatrick,  Commentary  on  Samnel,  1884. 

Perowne,  Commentary  on  the  Psalter,  6th  edition,  1886. 

Wesley's  Sermons,  cxxvi.  383 

Calvin' s  Commentaries  on  the  New  Testament. 

Westcott,  Commentary  on  Hebrews,  1889. 

Cotton  Mather,  Hades  Looked  Into,  1717. 

Dorner's  Future  State,  edited  by  Smythe,  1883. 

A.  F.  Mitchell,  The  Westminster  Assembly,  1883. 

A.  H.  Strong,  Systematic  Theology,  1886. 

Dr.  Prentiss's  Article,  Infant  Salvation,  in  the  Presby- 
terian Review,  Vol.  IV. 

G.  P.  Fisher,  Nature  and  Method  of  Revelation,  1890. 

Lux  Mundi,  1890,  1892. 

White's  Way  to  the  Tree  of  Life,  1848. 

Sunday,  Oracles  of  God,  1891. 

A.  B.  Bruce,  Kingdom  of  God,  1890. 

H.  B.  Smith,  System  of  Theology,  1884. 

W.  G.  T.  Shedd,  Article,  New  York  Observer,  1891. 

W.  H.  Green,  Article,  New  York  Observer,  1891 . 

Add  here  the  following  writers  who  testify  to  errors  in 
Holy  Scripture,  pp.  215,  235,  of  Bible,  Church  and  Reason. 

And  also  the  following  writers  who  testify  against  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  integrity  of 
Isaiah,  pp.  236,  247,  of  Bible.  Church  and  Reason. 

These  are  submitted,  without  reading,  in  accordance 
with  the  ruling  of  the  Presbytery.  All  this  evidence, 
whether  read  or  not  read,  is  filed  so  far  as  it  bears  upon 
this  case. 

The  question  was  here  raised  by  the  Prosecuting  Com-  384 
mittee  of  the  necessity  of  putting  Dr.  Briggs  under  oath, 
in  order  to  the  admission  of  the  evidence  presented  by 
him  from  his  own  works,  otherwise  said  quotations  should 
not  be  accepted  as  evidence.  The  parties  were  heard  on 
this  point,  and  the  Moderator  decided  that  because  the 
whole  evidence  offered  in  the  case  was  documentary  and 
not  personal  or  oral,  and  admitted  to  be  authentic,  the 
administration  of  the  oath  was  not  necessary. 


100 

From  this  decision  the  Prosecuting  Committee  took 
exception,  and  asked  to  have  entered  npon  the  record  an 
exception  to  the  above  decision. 

It  was  then  resolved  that  the  documentary  evidence 
which  has  been  offered  by  the  defendant  be  considered 
competent,  whereupon  the  Prosecuting  Committee  took 
exception  and  asked  to  have  entered  upon  the  record  an 
exception  to  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  in  admitting 
as  lawful  and  competent  evidence  any  part  of  the  quota- 

385  tions  made  by  the  accused,  in  so  far  as  they  are  writings 
or  extracts  from  the  writings  of  the  accused,  without  his 
having  first  taken  the  oath  or  affirmation  required  by  sec- 
tion 61  of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

The  evidence  from  both  parties  having  been  entered, 
the  Moderator  announced  that  it  is  now  proper  to  hear 
from  the  Prosecuting  Committee.  Whereupon  Dr.  Birch, 
of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  was  heard  in  part. 
The  minutes  were  read  and  approved  as  far  as  written. 
After  prayer,  Presbytery  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow 
at  2  p.  m. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 

386  New  York,   6th  December,  1892. 

BRIGGS  CASE. 
Scotch  Church,  Tuesday,  Dec.  6,  2  p.  m. 

Opened  with  prayer. 

Present :  Ministers — John  C.  Bliss,  Moderator  ;  Geo. 
Alexander,  Samuel  D.  Alexander,  Anson  P.  Atterbury, 
W.  W.  Atterbury,  Frederick  G.  Beebe,  Geo.  W.  F. 
Birch,  Nicholas  Bjerring,  Robert  R.  Booth,  Samuel 
Bowden,  Thomas  S.  Bradner,  Charles  A.  Briggs,  Francis 
Brown,  Walter  D.  Buchanan,  James  Chambers,  Edward 
L.  Clark,  Nathaniel  W.  Conkling,  Wilbur  F.  Crafts,  John 
B.  Devins,  Ira  S.  Dodd,  D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad  Doench, 
Wm.  Durant,  Thomas  Douglas,  Howard  Duffield,  John 
H.  Edwards,  Frank  F.  Ellinwood,  Henry  B.  Elliot,  Wil- 
liam T.  Elsing,    Charles  P.  Fagnani,  Henry  M.  Field, 


101 

Walter  B.  Floyd,  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford,  Charles 
R.  Gillett,  Henri  L.  Grandlienard,  James  Hall,  A.  Wood- 
ruff Halsey,  Wm.  R.  Harshaw,  Thomas  S.  Hastings, 
Edward  W.  Hitchcock,  James  H.  Hoadley,  James  Hun- 
ter, Samuel  M.  Jackson,  Joseph  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B.  King, 
A.  Dunlop  King,  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  Theodore  Leonhard, 
Milton  S.  Littlefield,  John  0.  Lowrie,  Daniel  E.  Lorenz, 
Wm.  Martin,  Charles  P.  Mallery,  Francis  H.  Marling, 
Henry  T.  McEwen,  James  H.  Mcllvaine,  Alex.  H.  387 
McKinney,  Alex.  McLean,  Duncan  J.  McMillan,  Horace 
G.  Miller,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  James  C.  Nightingale,  Geo. 
Nixon,  Israel  H.  Northrup,  Daniel  H.  Overton,  Levi 
Parsons,  James  G.  Patterson,  John  R.  Paxton,  Edward 
P.  Payson,  Geo.  S.  Payson,  Vincent  Pisek,  Hugh  Prit- 
chard,  James  S.  Ramsay,  Daniel  Redmon,  Charles  Rob- 
inson, Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  Albert  G.  Ruliffson,  William 
A.  Rice,  Robert  F.  Sample,  Joseph  Sanderson,  Joseph  A. 
Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  J.  Balcom  Shaw,  Geo.  L.  Shearer, 
Wm.  G.  T.  Shedd,  Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton  M.  Smith, 
Wm.  S.  Stitt,  Charles  A.  Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sutton,  Alex. 
W.  Sproull,  Geo.  L.  Spinning,  Charles  L.  Thompson, 
John  J.  Thompson,  Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Henry  Van  Dyke, 
Marvin  R.  Vincent,  Fred.  E.  Voegelin,  Thomas  G.  Wall, 
Abbott  L.  R.  Waite,  W.  Scott  Watson,  Geo.  Webster, 
Erskine  N.  White,  John  T.  Wilds,  Livingston  Willard, 
David  G.  Wylie. 

Elders — Moses  P.  Brown,  Adams  Memorial ;  James  388 
Tompkins,  Bethany ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux,  Brick ;  A.  P. 
Ketcham,  Calvary ;  Wm.  Mickens,  Central ;  Andrew 
Robinson,  Christ ;  James  McDowell,  East  Harlem ;  H. 
Edwards  Rowland,  Fifth  Avenue ;  Eugene  McJimpsey, 
First ;  John  McWilliam,  Fourth  ;  Geo.  E.  Sterry,  Fourth 
Avenue ;  Samuel  Reeve,  Fourteenth  Street ;  Samuel  H. 
Willard,  Harlem ;  Joseph  Moorhead,  Knox ;  Charles  H. 
Woodbury,  Madison  Square  ;  Robert  Johnson,  Morris- 
ania  First;  Thomas  Anderson,  New  York;  Gerard  us  C. 
King,  North  ;  Henry  Q.  Hawley,  Park ;  James  E.  Ware, 
Phillips ;  Geo.  C.  Lay,  Puritans ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge, 
Riverdale ;     Wm.    M.  Onderdonk,  Rutgers  R.  ;   Robert 


102 

Houston,  Scotch  ;  James  Anderson,  Seventh  ;  James  L. 
Birdsall,  Spring  Street ;  Wm.  R.  Worrall,  Thirteenth 
Street ;  C.  E.  Garey,  Tremont ;  Thomas  Bond,  University 
Place ;  Robert  Gentle,  Union  Tabernacle ;  Wm.  A. 
Wheelock,  Washington  Heights  ;  Robert  Jaffray,  West ; 

389  c.  P.  Leggett,  West  End  ;  Richard  Drummond,  West- 
minster. 

It  was  resolved  that  a  committee  of  five  be  appointed 
to  consider  and  report  a  principle  which  shall  guide  the 
Presbytery  in  the  granting  of  permission  to  vote  after 
temporary  absence,  and  also  to  receive  the  excuses  which 
are  offered,  and  report  upon  the  same  to  the  Presbytery. 

The  Moderator  therefore  appointed  as  this  committee 
Messrs.  Henry  Van  Dyke,  Anson  P.  Atterbury  and  James 
C.  Nightingale,  with  elders  Geo.  E.  Sterry  and  A.  P. 
Ketcham. 

Dr.  Birch,  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  now  continued 
his  argument. 

Dr.  Briggs  asked  respecting  the  evidence  submitted  by 
him  yesterday,  that  certain  extracts  from  publications 
named,  as  indicated  in  the  pages  given,  which  he  offered 

390  without  reading,  in  order  to  save  time,  be  incorporated 
in  the  stenographer's  notes. 

Whereupon  the  Moderator  decided  that  this  should  be 
done. 

The  Committee  on  Leave  of  Absence  reported  as  follows : 
1st.  That  the  excuse  for  absence  shall  relate  to  a  positive 
and  important  duty.  2d.  That  it  shall  not  involve 
absence  during  two  consecutive  sessions.  3d.  That  the 
absentee  shall  qualify  himself  for  voting  by  reading  the 
records  of  the  meeting  at  which  he  was  absent.  4th. 
Excuses  must  be  in  writing. 

The  minutes  were  read  and  approved.  Presbytery  now 
took  a  recess  until  to-morrow  at  2  p.  m. 

Concluded  with  prayer. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 


103 
New  Yokk,  7th  December,  1892.  391 
Scotch  Chukch,  Dec.  7,  2  p.  m. 
BRIGGS  CASE. 

After  recess    Presbytery  met  and  was  opened  with 
prayer. 

Present :  Ministers — John  C.  Bliss,  Moderator ;  Geo. 
Alexander,  Samuel  D.  Alexander,  Anson  P.  Atterbury, 
W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Frederick  G.  Beebe,  Geo.  W.  F. 
Birch,  Nicholas  Bj erring,  Robert  R.  Booth,  Samuel 
Bowden,  Thomas  S.  Bradner,  Charles  A.  Briggs,  Francis 
Brown,  Walter  D.  Buchanan,  James  Chambers,  Edward 
L.  Clark,  Nathaniel  W.  Conkling,  Wilbur  F.  Crafts,  John 
B.  Devins,  Ira  S.  Dodd,  D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad  Doench, 
Wm.  Durant,  Thomas  Douglas,  Howard  Dufneld,  John 
H.  Edwards,  Frank  F.  Ellin  wood,  Henry  B.  Elliot,  Wm. 
T.  Elsing,  Charles  P.  Fagnani,  Henry  M.  Field,  Walter 
B.  Floyd,  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R. 
Gillett,  Henri  L.  Grandlienard,  James  Hall,  A.  Woodruff 
Halsey,  Wm.  R.  Harshaw,  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Edward 
W.  Hitchcock,  James  H.  Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  Samuel 
M.  Jackson,  A.  D.  Lawrence  Jewett,  Joseph  R.  Kerr, 
Albert  B.  King,  Alexander  Dunlap  King,  Joseph  J.  Lampe, 
The.  Leonhard,  Milton  S.  Littlefield,  John  C.  Lowrie,  392 
Daniel  E.  Lorenz,  Wm.  M.  Martin,  Charles  P.  Mallery, 
Francis  H.  Marling,  Henry  T.  McEwen,  James  H. 
Mcllvaine,  Alex.  H.  McKinney,  Alex.  McLean,  Duncan 
J.  McMillan,  Horace  G.  Miller,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  James  C. 
Nightingale,  George  Nixon,  Israel  H.  Northrup,  Danl. 
H.  Overton,  Charles  H.  Parkhurst,  Levi  H.  Parsons, 
James  G.  Patterson,  John  R.  Paxton,  Edward  P.  Pay  son, 
Geo.  S.  Payson,  Hugh  Pritchard,  James  S.  Ramsey,  Danl. 
Redmon,  Charles  S.  Robinson,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  Albert 
G.  Ruliffson,  Wm.  A.  Rice,  Robert  F.  Sample,  Joseph 
Sanderson,  Joseph  A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  J.  Balcom 
Shaw,  Geo.  L.  Shearer,  Wm.  G.  T.  Shedd,  Andrew 
Shiland,  Wilton  M.  Smith,  Wm.  C.  Stitt,  Charles  A. 
Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sutton,  Alexander  W.  Sproull,  Geo. 


104 

L.  Spining,  Charles  L.  Thompson,  John  J.  Thompson, 
Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Henry  Van  Dyke,  Marvin  R.  Vincent, 
Fredk.  E.  Voegelin,  Thomas  G.  Wall,  Abbott  L.  R. 
Waite,  W.  Scott  Watson,  Geo.  S.  Webster,  John  T. 
Wilds,  Livingston  Willard,  David  G.  Wylie. 

393  Elders — Moses  P.  Brown,  Adams  Memorial ;  James 
Tompkins,  Bethany  ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux,  Brick  ;  A.  P. 
Ketcham,  Calvary ;  Wm.  Mickens,  Central ;  Andrew 
Robinson,  Christ;  James  McDowell,  East  Harlem;  H. 
Edwards  Rowland,  Fifth  Avenne ;  Eugene  McJimpsey, 
First ;  John  Mc William,  Fourth  ;  Geo.  E.  Sterry,  Fourth 
Avenue ;  Saml.  Reeve,  Fourteenth  Street ;  Saml.  H. 
Willard,  Harlem ;  Charles  H.  Woodbury,  Madison 
Square ;  Robert  Johnson,  Morrisania  First ;  Thomas 
Anderson,  New  York  ;  Gerardus  C.  King,  North  ;  Henry 
Q.  Hawley,  Park  ;  James  E.  Ware,  Phillips ;  Geo.  C.  Lay, 
Puritans ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  Riverdale ;  Wm.  M. 
Onderdonk,  Rutgers ;  Robert  Houston,  Knox ;  James 
Anderson,  Seventh ;   James  L.  Birdsall,  Spring  Street ; 

394  Wm.  R.  Worrall,  Thirteenth  Street;  C.  E.  Garey, 
Tremont ;  Thomas  Bond,  University  Place ;  Robert 
Gentle,  Union  Tabernacle  ;  Wm.  A.  Wheelock,  Washing- 
ton Heights ;  Robert  Jaffray,  West ;  C.  P.  Leggett,  West 
End ;  Alex.  Wilson,  West  Fifty-first  Street ;  Richard 
Drummond,  Westminster. 

The  Committee  of  Leave  of  Absence  reported,  recom- 
mending that  the  following  persons  have  unanimous  con- 
sent to  vote,  on  condition  that  they  read  the  evidence 
submitted  during  their  absence  in  full. 

Rev.  Messrs.  Stitt,  W.  D.  Buchanan,  Arreghi,  Shaw, 
E.  N.  White,  Duffield  and  W.  M.  Smith  under  the  rules. 

Whereupon,  by  consent  of  the  parties  and  Court,  they 
were  so  excused. 

It  was  resolved  that  Rev.  Messrs.  Vincent,  Pisek  and 
A.  D.  Lawrence  Jewett,  and  Elder  Alexander  Wilson  be 
enrolled. 

The  Rev.  Henry  Van  Dyke,  and  Anson  P.  Atterbury 
resigned  from  the  committee. 


105 

Mr.  McCook,  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  then  asked  395 
the  Clerk  to  read  from  pages  572  to  578,  inclusive,  of  the 
stenographer's  minutes  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday, 
Dec.  6,   1892,   down  to  and  including  the  sentence  in 
brackets. 

The  extract  called  for  was  read. 

Thereupon  the  following  exception  was  presented,  in 
compliance  with  Section  25  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  : 

In  compliance  with  Section  25  of  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline, the  Prosecuting  Committee  take  exception,  and 
ask  to  have  their  exception  entered  upon  the  record 
as  follows  :  The  stenographic  report  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  judicatory  upon  December  5,  1892,  as  furnished 
to  the  parties  by  the  stenographer,  beginning  at  the  last 
line  of  page  448  (erased  page  No.  484),  being  about  twenty 
pages  of  the  stenographer's  notes,  contain  words  and 
matter  which  were  not  spoken  upon  the  floor  of  the 
Presbytery  and  were  introduced,  as  is  stated  by  the 
stenographer,  into  the  stenographic  record,  upon  the  396 
request  of  Prof.  Briggs,  with  the  approval  of  the 
Moderator. 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  further  except,  and  ask 
leave  to  have  their  exception  entered  upon  the  record, 
against  the  decision  and  action  of  the  Moderator,  taken 
at  the  request  of  Prof.  Briggs  in  instructing  the  stenog- 
rapher, as  appears  by  page  578  of  the  stenographer's 
report  of  the  proceedings  of  December  6,  1892,  to  insert 
at  page  468  of  the  official  stenographic  report  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  this  court,  had  at  its  sessions  Monday,  Decem- 
ber 5, 1892,  fifteen  additional  printed  sheets. 

It  was  resolved  that  the  record  of  the  request  of  the 
Prosecuting  Committee  be  stricken  out  from  the  minutes, 
which  was  done. 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  gave  notice  of  exception, 
viz. : 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  except,  and  ask  their  ex- 
ception to  be  noted  on  the  record,  against  the  action  of 
the  judicatory  in  striking  from  the  minutes  as  read  the 
request  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  to  strike  out  the 


106 

matter  contained  upon  pages  448  to  a  point  below 
the  middle  of  page  468,  being  about  twenty  pages  of 
the  stenographer's  notes,  which  contain  words  and  mat- 
397  ter  which  were  not  spoken  upon  the  floor  of  the  Presby- 
tery, and  also  the  request  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee, 
that  fifteen  additional  sheets  which  contain  words  and 
matter  which  were  not  spoken  upon  the  floor  of  the 
Presbytery,  which  have  been  inserted  at  page  468  of  the 
official  stenographic  report,  be  stricken  out  and  that 
the  accused  be  not  permitted  to  refer  to  or  use  any  portion 
of  said  twenty  pages  of  the  stenographer's  notes  or  of  the 
said  fifteen  additional  printed  sheets,  or  the  books  or 
documents  therein  referred  to  as  evidence  upon  the  trial  or 
in  any  manner  whatever  before  this  judicatory. 

Dr.  Birch,  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  now  completed 
his  argument,  and  Mr.  McCook,  of  the  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee, was  heard  in  part. 

The  Rev.  Messrs.  Van  Dyke  and  A.  P.  Atterbury 
were,  on  motion,  requested  to  remain  on  the  Committee 
on  Leave  of  Absence. 

After  the  reading  a  part  of  the  minutes  Presbytery  took 
a  recess  until  Tuesday  the  13th,  at  2  p.  m. 


409  New  Yoek,  8th  December,  1892. 

Scotch  Chuech,  2  p.  m. 

BRIGGS  CASE. 

Presbytery  met  after  recess  (Dec.  7)  and  was  opened 
with  prayer. 

Present:  Ministers  —  John  C.  Bliss,  Mod'r;  Geo. 
Alexander,  Saml.  D.  Alexander,  Anson  P.  Atterbury, 
W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Frederick  G.  Beebe,  Geo.  W.  F. 
Birch,  Nicholas  Bjerring,  Robert  R.  Booth,  Saml. 
Bowden,  Thomas  S.  Bradner,  Charles  A.  Briggs,  Francis 
Brown,  Walter  D.  Buchanan,  James  Chambers,  Edward 
L.  Clark,  Nathaniel  W.  Conkling,  John  B.  Devins,  Ira  S. 
Dodd,  D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad  Doench,  Wm.  Durant, 


107 

Thomas  Douglas,  Howard  Duffield,  John  H.  Edwards, 
Frank  F.  Ellinwood,  Henry  B.  Elliot,  Wm.  T.  El  sing, 
Charles  P.  Fagnani,  Henry  M.  Field,  Walter  B.  Floyd, 
Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R.  Gillett,  Henri 
L.  Grandlienard,  James  Hall,  A.  Woodruff  Halsey,  Wm. 
R.  Harshaw,  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Edward  W.  Hitchcock, 
James  H.  Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  Saml.  N.  Jackson, 
A.  D.  Lawrence,  Jos.  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B.  King,  A.  Dunlop 
King,  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  Theodore  Leonhard,  Milton  S. 
Littlefield,  John  C.  Lowrie,  Daniel  E.  Lorenz,  W.  M. 
Martin,  Charles  P.  Mallery,  Francis  H.  Marling,  Henry  410 
T.  McEwen,  James  H.  Mcllvaine,  Alexander  H.  McKinney, 
Alexander  McLean,  Duncan  J.  McMillan,  Horace  G. 
Miller,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  James  C.  Nightingale,  Geo. 
Nixon,  Israel  H.  Northrup,  Daniel  H.  Overton,  Charles 
H.  Parkhurst,  Levi  H.  Parsons,  James  G.  Patterson, 
John  R.  Paxton,  Edward  P.  Payson,  Geo.  S.  Payson, 
Vincent  Pisek,  Hugh  Pritchard,  James  S.  Ramsay, 
Daniel  Redmon,  Charles  S.  Robinson,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter, 
Albert  G.  Ruliffson,  William  A.  Rice,  Robert  F.  Sample, 
Joseph  Sanderson,  Joseph  A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff, 
J.  Balcom  Shaw,  Geo.  L.  Shearer,  Wm.  G.  T.  Shedd, 
Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton  M.  Smith,  Wm.  C.  Stitt, 
Charles  A.  Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sutton,  Alex.  W.  Sproull, 
Geo.  L.  Spining,  Charles  L.  Thompson,  John  J.  Thompson, 
Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Henry  Van  Dyke,  Marvin  R.  Vincent, 
Frederick  E.  Voegelin,  Thomas  G.  Wall,  Abbott  L.  R. 
Waite,  W.  Scott  Watson,  Geo.  S.  Webster,  John  T. 
Wilds,  Erskine  N.  White,  Livingston  Willard,  David  G. 
Wylie. 

Elders — Moses  P.  Brown,  Adams  Memorial ;  James 
Tompkins,  Bethany ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux,  Brick ;  A.  P. 
Ketcham,  Calvary ;  Wm.  Mickins,  Central  ;  Andrew 
Robinson,  Christ ;  James  McDowell,  East  Harlem ;  411 
H.  Edwards  Rowland,  Fifth  Avenue  ;  Eugene  McJimpsey, 
First ;  John  Mc William,  Fourth ;  Geo.  E.  Sterry, 
Fourth  Avenue ;  Saml.  Reeve,  Fourteenth  Street ; 
Saml.  H.  Willard,  Harlem ;  Charles  H.  Woodbury, 
Madison    Square;    Robert  Johnson,   First  Morrisania; 


108 

Thomas  Anderson,  New  York  ;  Gerardus  C.  King,  North  ; 
Henry  Q.  Hawley,  Park  ;  James  E.  Ware,  Phillips  ;  Geo. 
C.  Lay,  Puritans ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  Riverdale  ;  Wm. 
M.  Onderdonk,  Rutgers ;  Robert  Houston,  Scotch ; 
James  Anderson,  Seventh ;  James  L.  Birdsall,  Spring 
Street;  Wm.  R.  Worrall,  Thirteenth  Street;  C.  E. 
Garey,  Tremont ;  Thomas  Bond,  University  Place  ;  Robert 
Gentle,  Union  Tabernacle ;  Wm.  A.  Wheelock,  Washing- 
412  ton  Heights ;  C.  P.  Leggett,  West  End ;  Alex.  Wilson, 
West  Fifty-first  Street ;  Richd.  Drummond,  Westminster. 

On  a  question  of  privilege,  notice  of  intention  to  protest 
against  matter  inserted  in  the  stenographer's  notes,  not 
spoken  upon  the  floor,  was  then  given  by  Elder  A.  P. 
Ketcham. 

Mr.  McCook,  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  then  com- 
pleted his  argument. 

It  was  resolved  that  when  we  take  recess  it  be  until 
Tuesday,  December  13th,  at  2  p.  m.,  in  view  of  the  regu- 
lar monthly  meeting  of  Presbytery  on  Monday  next,  at 

3  P.  M. 

The  minutes  were  read  and  approved  as  far  as  written. 

Concluded  with  prayer. 

Presbytery  took  recess  until  Tuesday  next. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Cleric. 


New  Yoek,  13th  December,  1892. 
413  BRIGGS  CASE. 

Presbytery  met  after  recess  December  13th,  2  p.  m.,  in 
the  Scotch  Church. 

Present :  Ministers — John  C.  Bliss,  Moderator  ;  Geo. 
L.  Alexander,  Saml.  D.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi, 
Anson  P.  Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Frederick 
G.  Beebe,  Geo.  W.  F.  Birch,  Nicholas  Bjerring,  Robert 
R.  Booth,  Saml.  Bowden,  Thos.  S.  Bradner,  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  Francis  Brown,  Walter  D.  Buchanan,  James 
Chambers,  Edward  L.  Clark,  Nathaniel  W.  Conkling, 
John  B.  Devins,  Ira  S.  Dodd,  D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad 


109 

Doench,  Wm.  Durant,  Thomas  Douglas,  Howard 
Duffield,  John  H.  Edwards,  Frank  F.  Ellinwood,  Henry 
B.  Elliott,  Charles  P.  Fagnani,  Henry  M.  Field,  Walter 
B.  Floyd,  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R. 
Gillett,  Henri  L.  Grandlienard,  James  Hall,  A.  Woodruff 
Halsey,  Wm.  R.  Harshaw,  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Edward 
W.  Hitchcock,  James  H.  Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  Saml. 
M.  Jackson,  A.  D.  Lawrence  Jewett,  Joseph  R.  Kerr, 
Albert  B.  King,  A.  Dunlop  King,  Joseph  J.  Lampe, 
Theodore  Leonhard,  Milton  S.  Littlefield,  John  C. 
Lowrie,  C.  E.  Lorenz,  Wm.  M.  Martin,  Charles  P. 
Mallery,  Francis  H.  Marling,  James  H.  Mcllvaine,  Alex.  414 
H.  McKinney,  Alex.  McLean,  Duncan  J.  McMillan, 
Horace  G.  Miller,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  James  C.  Nightingale, 
Israel  H.  Northrup,  Daniel  H.  Overton,  Levi  H.  Parsons, 
James  H.  Patterson,  John  R.  Paxton,  Edward  P. 
Payson,  Vincent  Pisek,  Hugh  Pritchard,  James  S. 
Ramsey,  Daniel  Redmon,  Charles  S.  Robinson,  Stealy  B. 
Rossi ter,  Albert  G.  Ruliffson,  William  A.  Rice,  Robert 
F.  Sample,  Joseph  Sanderson,  Joseph  A.  Saxton,  Philip 
Schaff,  Geo.  L.  Shearer,  Wm.  G.  T.  Shedd,  Andrew 
Shiland,  Wilton  M.  Smith,  Wm.  C.  Stitt,  Charles  A. 
Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sutton,  Alex.  W.  Sproull,  Geo.  L. 
Spining,  Charles  L.  Thompson,  John  J.  Thompson, 
Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Henry  Van  Dyke,  Marvin  R.  Vincent, 
Thomas  G.  Wall,  Abbott  L.  R.  Waite,  W.  Scott  Watson, 
Geo.  S.  Webster,  Erskine  N.  White,  Livingston  Willard, 
David  G.  Wylie. 

Elders — Moses  P.  Brown,  Adams  Memorial ;  James 
Tompkins,  Bethany  ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux,  Brick  ;  A.  P. 
Ketcham,  Calvary  ;  William  Mickins,  Central ;  Andrew  415 
Robinson,  Christ ;  James  McDowell,  East  Harlem ;  H. 
Edwards  Rowland,  Fifth  Avenue  ;  Eugene  McJimpsey, 
First ;  John  McWilliam,  Fourth  ;  Geo.  E.  Sterry,  Fourth 
Avenue ;  Saml.  Reeve,  Fourteenth  Street ;  Saml.  H. 
Willard,  Harlem ;  Charles  H.  Woodbury,  Madison 
Square ;  Robert  Johnson,  Morrisania  First ;  Thomas 
Anderson,  New  York  ;  Gerardus  C.  King,  North  ;  Henry 
Q.  Hawley,  Park ;  James  E.  Ware,  Phillips  ;   Geo.   C. 


110 

Lay,  Puritans ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  Riverdale ;  Robert 
Houston,  Scotch  ;  James  Anderson,  Seventh ;  James  L. 
Birdsall,  Spring  Street ;  Wm.  R.  Worrall,  Thirteenth 
Street ;  C.  E.  Garey,  Tremont ;  Thomas  Bond,  University 
Place ;  Robert  Gentle,  Union  Tabernacle ;  Wm.  A. 
416  Wheelock,  Washington  Heights  ;  Robert  J  affray,  West ; 
C.  P.  Leggett,  West  End  ;  Richd.  Drummond,  West- 
minster. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Briggs  now  began  his  defense,  and  con- 
tinued his  argument  until  the  hour  of  recess. 

The  following  members  of  the  court  were  excused, 
under  the  rules,  for  a  part  of  this  afternoon,  Rev.  Messrs. 
J.  Balcom  Shaw,  Henry  T.  McEwen,  James  Hunter,  Geo. 
Alexander,  Wm.  T.  Elsing,  Thomas  G.  Wall,  Horace  G. 
Miller,  and  Elders  William  Onderdonk  and  Alexander 
Wilson. 

The  following  were  also  excused  for  a  part  of  Wednes- 
day afternoon,  Rev.  Messrs.  Anson  P.  Atterbury  and 
Nicholas  Bjerring  and  Elder  A.  R.  Ledoux. 

The  following  protest,  of  which  notice  was  given  at 
the  last  session  of  the  Court,  was  then  presented  by  A. 
P.  Ketcham,  and  signed  by  A.  P.  Ketcham,  Wm.  G.  T. 
Shedd,  Geo.  L.  Shearer,  Robert  Russell  Booth,  Israel  H. 
Northrup,  Charles  S.  Robinson,  Henry  B.  Elliott,  Thomas 
±yj  Douglas,  Hugh  Pritchard,  Samuel  Bowden,  W.  B.  Floyd, 
A.  W.  Sproull,  Conrad  Doench,  H.  G.  Miller,  Robert 
Houston,  James  Hall,  Abbott  L.  R.  Waite,  Thomas 
Anderson,  Wm.  R.  Worrall,  Edward  P.  Payson. 

PROTEST. 

The  undersigned,  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  present  at  the  judicial  proceedings  held  on  the 
fifth  and  sixth  days  of  December,  1892,  in  the  case  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  and  not  ap- 
proving of  the  proceedings  in  said  case  as  hereinafter 
recited,  do  in  compliance  with  section  104  of  the  Book  of 
Dicipline,  respectfully  protest  against  the  injurious  and 
erroneous  acts  and  proceedings  hereinafter  described. 


Ill 

The  attention  of  the  judicatory  has  been  called  to  the 
fact  that  the  stenographic  report  of  the  proceedings  of 
this  body  upon  December  5,  1892,  includes  about 
twenty  pages  of  stenographer's  notes  beginning  at  the 
last  line  of  page  448,  erased  page  No.  461,  to  a  point  be-  418 
low  the  middle  of  page  468,  erased  page  No.  484,  which 
contain  words  and  matter  which  were  not  spoken  upon 
the  floor  of  the  Presbytery,  and,  as  it  is  stated  by  the 
stenographer,  were  inserted  into  the  stenographic  report, 
upon  the  request  or  suggestion  of  Professor  Briggs,  with 
the  approval  of  the  Moderator.  This  insertion  of  about 
twenty  pages  of  new  matter,  which  purports  to  be 
evidence  in  the  case,  now  before  the  Presbytery,  was 
made  by  the  stenographer  in  the  interval  between  two 
sessions  of  the  judicatory,  and  after  it  had  been  an- 
nounced to  the  house  that  both  of  the  parties  had  fully 
presented  their  evidence  and  after  the  argument  in  be- 
half of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  had  been  begun.  The 
fact  that  it  was  proposed  to  insert  in  the  stenographer's 
minutes  said  twenty  pages  of  notes,  purporting  to  be 
evidence  in  the  case,  was  not  passed  upon  or  authorized 
by  the  judicatory  or  mentioned  upon  the  floor,  or  in  any 
way  called  to  the  attention  of  the  house  until  towards 
the  close  of  the  next  day's  session.  (Stenographer's 
Keport,  p.  572.) 

The  attention  of  the  judicatory  has  also  been  called  to  419 
the  fact,  that  in  addition  to  the  twenty  pages  of  steno- 
grapher's  notes,  containing  new  matter  purporting  to  be 
evidence  in  this  case  inserted  in  the  stenographer's  report 
as  above  described,  that  it  appears,  by  page  578  of  the 
stenographer's  report  of  the  proceedings  of  December  6, 
1892,  that  there  had  been  inserted  at  page  468  of  the 
official  stenographic  report  of  the  proceedings  of  this 
body,  held  on  Monday,  December  5,  1892,  fifteen  ad- 
ditional printed  sheets,  which  fifteen  additional  printed 
sheets  are  said  to  contain  words  and  matter  which  were 
not  spoken  upon  the  floor  of  the  Presbytery,  and  were 
introduced  by  the  stenographer  into  the  official  steno- 
graphic report  of  the  proceedings,  as  the  minutes  of  De- 


112 

cember  6,  1892  (page  578),  show,  upon  the  request  or 
suggestion  of  Prof.  Briggs,  and  by  direction  of  the 
Moderator. 

This  insertion  of  fifteen  additional  printed  sheets  of 
new  matter  which  purports  to  be  evidence  in  the  case  now 
before  this  Presbytery  was  made  by  the  stenographer 
420  after  it  had  been  announced  to  the  house  that  both  of  the 
parties  had  fully  presented  their  evidence  and  after  the 
argument  in  behalf  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  had 
been  begun. 

The  fact  that  it  was  proposed  to  insert  in  the  stenog- 
rapher' s  minutes  the  said  fifteen  additional  printed 
sheets,  purporting  to  be  evidence  in  the  case,  was  not 
passed  upon  or  authorized  by  the  judicatory  as  such. 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  having  called  attention  to 
these  unauthorized  additions  to  the  stenographer's  record, 
above  referred  to,  and  having  taken  exception  thereto, 
they  asked  that  the  said  twenty  pages  of  stenographer' s 
notes  and  the  said  fifteen  additional  printed  sheets,  pur- 
porting to  be  evidence  in  the  judicial  case,  so  introduced 
into  the  official  stenographic  record,  should  be  stricken 
therefrom,  and  that  the  accused  should  not  be  permitted 
to  refer  to  or  use  the  contents  of  said  twenty  pages  of 
stenographer's  notes  or  of  the  said  fifteen  additional 
4qi  printed  sheets,  or  any  of  the  extracts,  documents  or  books 
in  either  of  them  contained,  recited  or  referred  to,  as  evi- 
dence upon  the  trial,  or  in  any  manner  whatever  before 
this  judicatory,  and  a  motion  having  been  duly  made  and 
seconded,  that  the  judicatory  should  comply  with  the 
request  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  and  strike  out  all 
such  matter  from  the  stenographic  report,  said  motion 
was  declared  by  the  Moderator  to  be  out  of  order  and  was 
not  put  to  the  house ;  subsequently,  on  motion  made  and 
seconded,  the  record  upon  the  official  minutes  of  Presby- 
tery of  the  request  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  to  strike 
out  said  twenty  pages  of  stenographer's  notes  and  said 
fifteen  additional  printed  sheets,  was  stricken  from  the 
minutes  of  Presbytery,  and  exception  was  taken  thereto 
by  the  Prosecuting  Committee. 


113 

We  respectfully  protest  against  the  above-described 
proceedings  and  action  of  the  judicatory  for  the  follow- 
ing reasons : 

First.  The  stenographic  report  of  the  proceedings  of  a 
Judicatory  should  give  an  exact  report  of  all  that  is  said  422 
upon  the  floor,  and  nothing  more.  By  the  proceedings 
protested  against  there  has  been  added  to  the  stenograph- 
er' s  record  much  new  matter,  which  should  not  have  been 
inserted  there. 

Second.  As  the  new  matter  thus  introduced  and  im- 
properly inserted  in  the  stenographer's  record,  purports 
to  be  evidence  in  the  case,  it  is  misleading,  erroneous  and 
irregular  and  may  greatly  hamper,  embarrass  and  possi- 
bly vitiate  the  entire  judicial  proceedings. 

Third.  Orderly  procedure  and  obligation  to  set  forth 
upon  the  record  the  exact  facts  in  a  judicial  proceeding, 
require  that  no  pains  should  be  spared  to  secure  the  ac- 
curacy and  integrity  of  the  official  stenographic  report  of 
the  proceedings. 

Fourth.  By  the  proceedings  and  action  now  protested 
against,  the  entire  record  of  this  important  judicial  case 
may  be  rendered  invalid  and  ineffectual,  thus  bringing 
discredit  upon  our  system  and  working  irreparable  dam- 
age to  one  or  other  of  the  parties,  to  the  cause  of  truth  423 
and  the  exercise  of  a  wise  and  just  discipline. 
Signed  as  above. 

New  York,  December  8,  1892. 

It  was  then  resolved  that  a  committee  be  appointed  to 
prepare  an  answer  to  the  above  protest  to  be  entered  on 
the  record. 

Whereupon  the  following  were  appointed  such  a 
committee :  Rev.  Messrs.  Francis  Brown  and  Duncan 
J.  McMillan,  with  Elder  Cleveland  H.  Dodge. 

After  the  reading  and  approving  of  the  minutes  as  far 
as  written,  Presbytery  took  a  recess  till  to-morrow  at 

2  P.  M. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 


114 
New  York,  14th  December,  1892. 

424  BBIGGS  CASE. 

Scotch  Church,  Tuesday,  Dec.  14,  2  p.  m. 

Presbytery  met  after  recess  and  was  opened  with 
prayer. 

Present :  Ministers — John  C.  Bliss,  Mod.;  Geo.  Alex- 
ander, Saml.  D.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi,  Anson  P. 
Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Frederick  G.  Beebe, 
Geo.  W.  F.  Birch,  Robert  R.  Booth,  Saml.  Bowden, 
Thomas  S.  Bradner,  Charles  A.  Briggs,  Francis  Brown, 
Walter  D.  Buchanan,  James  Chambers,  Edward  L. 
Clark,  John  B.  Devins,  Ira  S.  Dodd,  D.  Stuart  Dodge, 
Conrad  Doench,  William  Durant,  Thomas  Douglas, 
Howard  Duffield,  John  H.  Edwards,  Frank  F.  Ellinwood, 
Henry  B.  Elliot,  Wm.  T.  E.  Elsing,  Charles  P.  Fagnani, 
Henry  M.  Field,  Walter  B.  Floyd,  Jesse  F.  Forbes, 
Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R.  Gillett,  Henri  Grandlienard, 
James  Hall,  A.  Woodruff  Halsey,  Wm.  R.  Harshaw, 
Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Edward  W.  Hitchcock,  James  H. 
Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  Saml.  M.  Jackson,  A.  D.  Law- 
rence Jewett,  Joseph  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B.  King,  A.  Dunlap 
King,  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  Milton  S.  Littlefield,  John  C. 
Lowrie,  Daniel  E.  Lorenz,  Wm.  M.  Martin,  Charles  P. 

425  Mallery,  Francis  H.  Marling,  Henry  T.  McEwen,  James 
H.  Ilvaine,  Alex.  H.  McKinney,  Alexr.  McLean,  Duncan 
J.  McMillan,  Horace  G.  Miller,  Geo.  J.  Mingins,  Wm.  L. 
Moore,  James  C.  Nightingale,  Geo.  Nixon,  Israel  H. 
Northrup,  Daniel  H.  Overton,  Levi  H.  Parsons,  James  G. 
Patterson,  John  R.  Patterson,  Edward  P.  Payson,  Vincent 
Pisek,  Hugh  Pritchard,  James  S.  Ramsey,  Daniel 
Redmon,  Charles  S.  Robinson,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter, 
Albert  G.  Ruliffson,  Wm.  A.  Rice,  Robert  F.  Sample, 
Joseph  Sanderson,  Joseph  A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff, 
J.  Balcom  Shaw,  George  L.  Shearer,  Wm.  G.  T.  Shedd, 
Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton  M.  Smith,  Wm.  C.  Stitt,  Charles 
A.  Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sutton,   Alex.  W.  Sproull,  Geo. 


lie 

L.  Spining,  Charles  L.  Thompson,  John  J.  Thompson, 
Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Henry  Van  Dyke,  Marvin  R.  Vincent, 
Thomas  G.  Wall,  Abbott  L.  R.  Waite,  W.  Scott  Watson, 
Geo.  S.  Webster,  Erskine  N.  White,  Livingston  Willard, 
David  G.  Wylie. 

Elders — Moses  P.  Brown,  Adams  Memorial ;  James 
Tompkins,  Bethany ;  Alex.  P.  Ketcham,  Calvary ; 
Wm.  Mickens,  Central  ;  Andrew  Robinson,  Christ  ; 
James  McDowell,  East  Harlem ;  H.  Edwards  Rowland,  426 
Fifth  Avenue ;  Eugene  McJimpsey,  First ;  John 
Mc William,  Fourth;  Geo.  E.  Sterry,  Fourth  Avenue; 
Saml.  Reeve,  Fourteenth  Street;  Saml.  H.  Willard, 
Harlem ;  Joseph  Moorhead,  Knox ;  Charles  H.  Wood- 
bury, Madison  Square  ;  Robert  Johnson,  First  Morrisania ; 
Thomas  Anderson,  New  York  ;  G.  C.  King,  North  ;  Henry 
Q.  Hawley,  Park  ;  James  E.  Ware,  Phillips  ;  Geo.  C.  Lay, 
Puritans ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  Riverdale ;  Wm.  M. 
Onderdonk,  Rutgers,  R.  ;  Robert  Houston,  Scotch  ;  James 
Anderson,  Seventh  ;  Wm.  R.  Worrall,  Thirteenth  Street; 
C.  E.  Garey,  Tremont ;  Thomas  Bond,  University  Place  ; 
Robert  Gentle,  Union  Tabernacle ;  Wm.  A.  Wheelock, 
Washington  Heights;  Robert  J  affray,  West;  C.  P.  427 
Leggett,  West  End  ;  Richd.  Drummond,  Westminster. 

After  the  roll  call  Dr.  Briggs  continued  his  argument. 
At  twenty  minutes  of  four  o'clock  an  intermission  of  ten 
minutes  was  taken,  after  which  Dr.  Briggs  continued  his 
argument  until  recess. 

It  was  resolved  that  Dr.  Briggs  have  leave  to  present  to 
the  Court  a  part  of  his  argument  in  print  without  read- 
ing, and  that  this  part  go  into  the  official  report  of  the 
stenographer. 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  excepted  and  asks  to  have 
its  exception  noted  upon  the  record  to  the  action  of  the 
Presbytery  in  resolving  that  Dr.  Briggs  have  leave  to 
present  to  the  Court  a  part  of  his  argument  in  print  with- 
out reading,  and  that  this  fact  go  into  the  official  report 
of  the  stenographer. 

Whereupon  Dr.  Sutton  gave  notice  of  protest  against 
this  action. 


116 

After  the  reading  and  approval  of  the  minutes  as  far  as 
written,  and  prayer,  Presbytery  took  a  recess. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 


428  New  York,  15th  December,  1892. 

BRIGGS  CASE. 
Scotch  Church,  2  p.  m. 

After  recess  Presbytery  met  and  was  opened  with 
prayer. 

Present :  Ministers — John  C.  Bliss,  Mod. ;  Geo.  Alex- 
ander, Saml.  D.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi,  Anson  P. 
Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Frederick  G.  Beebe, 
Geo.  W.  F.  Birch,  Nicholas  Bjerring,  Robert  R.  Booth, 
Saml.  Bowden,  Thomas  S.  Bradner,  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
Francis  Brown,  Walter  D.  Buchanan,  James  Chambers, 
Edward  L.  Clark,  John  B.  Devins,  Ira  S.  Dodd,  D.  Stuart 
Dodge,  Conrad  Doench,  Wm.  Durant,  Thomas  Douglas, 
Howard  Duffield,  John  H.  Edwards,  Frank  F.  Ellinwood, 
Henry  B.  Elliot,  Wm.  T.  Elsing,  Charles  P.  Fagnani, 
Henry  M.  Field,  Walter  B.  Floyd,  Jesse  F.  Forbes, 
Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R.  Gillett,  Henri  L.  Grandlienard, 
James  Hall,  A.  Woodruff  Halsey,  Wm.  R.  Harshaw, 
Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Edward  W.  Hitchcock,  James  H. 
Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  Saml.  M.  Jackson,  A.  D.  Law- 
rence Jewett,  Joseph  H.  Kerr,  Albert  B.  King,  A.  Dunlop 
King,  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  Theodore  Leonhard,  Milton  S. 
Littlefield,  John  C.  Lowrie,  Daniel  E.   Lorenz,   Wm.  M. 

429  Martin,  Ch.  P.  Mallery,  Francis  H.  Marling,  Henry  T. 
McEwen,  James  H.  Mcllvaine,  Alex.  H.  McKinney, 
Alex.  McLean,  Duncan  McMillan,  Horace  G.  Miller, 
Geo.  J.  Mingins,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  James  C.  Nightingale, 
Geo.  Nixon,  Israel  H.  Northrup,  Daniel  H.  Overton,  Levi 
H.  Parsons,  James  G.  Patterson,  John  R.  Paxton,  Edward 
P.  Payson,  Geo.  S.  Pay  son,  Vincent  Pisek,  Hugh 
Pritchard,  James  S.  Ramsay,  Daniel  Redmon,  Charles  S. 


117 

Robinson,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  Albert  G.  Ruliffson,  Wm. 
A.  Rice,  Robert  F.  Sample,  Joseph  Sanderson,  Joseph 
A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  J.  Balcom  Shaw,  Geo.  L. 
Shearer,  Wm.  G.  T.  Shedd,  Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton  M. 
Smith,  Wm.  C.  Stitt,  Charles  A.  Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sut- 
ton, Alex.  W.  Sproull,  Geo.  L.  Spining,  Charles  L. 
Thompson,  John  J.  Thompson,  Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Henry 
Van  Dyke,  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  Fred.  E.  Voegelin, 
Thomas  G.  Wall,  Abbott  L.  R.  Waite,  W.  Scott  Watson, 
Geo.  S.  Webster,  Erskine  N.  White,  Livingston  Willard, 
David  G.  Wylie. 

Elders — Moses  P.  Brown,  Adams  Memorial ;  James 
Tompkins,  Bethany ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux,  Brick ;  Alex- 
ander P.  Ketcham,  Calvary  ;  William  Mickens,  Central ;  430 
Andrew  Robinson,  Christ ;  James  McDowell,  East  Harlem; 
H.  Edwards  Rowland,  Fifth  Avenue ;  Eugene  Mc  Jimp- 
sey,  First ;  John  McWilliam,  Fourth ;  Geo.  E.  Sterry, 
Fourth  Avenue  ;  Saml.  Reeve,  Fourteenth  Street ;  Saml. 
H.  Willard,  Harlem  ;  Joseph  Moorhead,  Knox  ;  Charles 
H.  Woodbury,  Madison  Square  ;  Robert  Johnson,  First 
Morrisania  ;  Thomas  Anderson,  New  York  ;  G.  C.  King, 
North ;  Henry  Q.  Hawley,  Park ;  James  E.  Ware,  Phil- 
lips ;  Geo.  C.  Lay,  Puritans ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge, 
Riverdale ;  Wm.  M.  Onderdonk,  Rutgers,  R.  ;  Robert 
Houston,  Knox  ;  James  Anderson,  Seventh  ;  Wm.  R. 
Worrall,  Thirteenth  Street ;  C.  E.  Garey,  Tremont ; 
Thomas  Bond,  University  Place ;  Robert  Gentle,  Union  431 
Tabernacle;  Wm.  A.  Wheelock,  Washington  Heights; 
Robert  Jaffray,  West ;  C.  P.  Leggett,  West  End  ;  Richard 
Drummond,  Westminster,  etc. 

After  the  calling  of  the  roll  Dr.  Briggs  continued  his 
argument. 

At  twenty  minutes  to  four  an  intermission  of  a  few 
minutes  was  taken,  after  which  Dr.  Briggs  handed  to  the 
members  of  the  Court  in  print  a  portion  of  that  part  of 
his  argument  referred  to  in  the  resolution  of  yesterday. 
He  then  continued  his  argument  until  the  hour  of  recess. 

Under  the  rule,  and  with  unanimous  consent,  the  fol- 
lowing ministers  were  excused  from  Monday's  session: 


118 

C.  L.  Thompson,  Henry  T.  McEwen,  Wm.  Durant, 
Erskine  N.  White,  Frank  F.  Ellinwood  and  Milton  S. 
Littlefield. 

After  reading  and  approving  the  minutes  so  far  as 
written,  Presbytery  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow  at  2 

P.  M. 

Concluded  with  prayer. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 


432  New  York,  19th  December,  1892. 
Scotch  Church,  December  19,  2  p.  m. 

Presbytery  met  after  recess  and  was  opened  with 
prayer. 

Present :  Ministers — John  C.  Bliss,  Moderator ;  Geo. 
Alexander,  Saml.  D.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi,  Anson 
P.  Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Frederick  G. 
Beebe,  Geo.  W.  F.  Birch,  Nicholas  Bjerring,  Robert  R. 
Booth,  Saml.  Bowden,  Thos.  S.  Bradner,  Chas.  A. 
Briggs,  Francis  Brown,  Walter  D.  Buchanan,  James 
Chambers,  Edward  L.  Clark,  John  B.  Devins,  Ira  S. 
Dodd,  D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad  Doench,  Thomas  Doug- 
las, Howard  Duffield,  John  H.  Edwards,  Frank  F.  Ellin- 
wood,  Henry  B.  Elliot,  Wm.  T.  Elsing,  Charles  P.  Fag- 
nani,  Henry  M.  Field,  Walter  B.  Floyd,  Jesse  F.  Forbes, 
Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R.  Gillett,  Henri  Grandlienard, 
James  Hall,  A.  W.  Halsey,  Wm.  R.  Harshaw,  Thomas  S. 
Hastings,  Edward  W.  Hitchcock,  James  H.  Hoadley, 
James  Hunter,  Saml.  M.  Jackson,  A.  D.  Lawrence  Jewett, 
Jos.  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B.  King,  A.  Dunlop  King,  Joseph  J. 
Lampe,  Theodore  Leonhard,  Milton  S.  Littlefield,  John 
C.  Lowrie,  Daniel  E.  Lorenz,  Wm.  M.  Martin,  Charles  P. 
Mallery,  Francis  H.  Marling,  Henry  T.  McEwen,  Alex. 
McLean,  Duncan  J.  McMillan,  Horace  G.  Miller,  Geo.  J. 

433  Mingins,  James  C.  Nightingale,  Geo.  Nixon,  Israel  H. 
Northrup,  Daniel  H.  Overton,  Levi  H.  Parsons,  James 
G.  Patterson,  Edward  P.  Payson,  Geo.  S.  Payson,  Vincent 
Pisek,  Hugh  Pritchard,  James  S.  Ramsay,  Daniel  Red- 


119 

mon,  Charles  S.  Robinson,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  Albert  G. 
Ruliffson,  Win.  A.  Rice,  Robert  F.  Sample,  Jos.  Sander- 
son, Jos.  A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  J.  Balcom  Shaw,  Geo. 
L.  Shearer,  Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton  M.  Smith,  Wm.  C. 
Stitt,  Charles  A.  Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sutton,  Alex.  W. 
Sproull,  Geo.  L.  Spining,  Ch.  L.  Thompson,  John  J. 
Thompson,  Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Henry  Van  Dyke,  Marvin 
R.  Vincent,  Frederick  E.  Voegelin,  Thos.  G.  Wall, 
Abbott  L.  R.  Waite,  W.  Scott  Watson,  Geo.  S.  Webster, 
Erskine  N.  White,  Livingston  Willard,  David  G.  Wylie. 

Elders — Moses  P.  Brown,  Adams  Memorial ;  James 
Tompkins,  Bethany  ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux,  Brick  ;  Alex. 
P.  Ketcham,  Calvary ;  Wm.  Mickens,  Central ;  Andrew 
Robinson,  Christ ;  James  McDowell,  East  Harlem  ;  H. 
Edwards  Rowland,  Fifth  Avenue ;  Eugene  McJimpsey, 
First ;  John  Mc  William,  Fourth  ;  Geo.  E.  Sterry,  Fourth 
Avenue  ;  Saml.  Reeve,  Fourteenth  Street ;  Saml.  H.  Wil-  434 
lard,  Harlem ;  Joseph  Moorhead,  Knox ;  Charles  H. 
Woodbury,  Madison  Square ;  Robert  Johnson,  First 
Morrisania ;  G.  C.  King,  North;  Henry  Q.  Hawley, 
Park  ;  James  E.  Ware,  Phillips ;  Geo.  C.  Lay,  Puritans  ; 
Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  Riverdale ;  Wm.  M.  Onderdonk, 
Rutgers,  R.  ;  Robert  Houston,  Scotch  ;  James  Anderson, 
Seventh;  Wm.  R.  Worrall,  Thirteenth  Street;  C.  E. 
Garey,  Tremont ;  Thomas  Bond,  University  Place ; 
Robert  Gentle,  Union  Tabernacle ;  Wm.  A.  Wheelock, 
Washington  Heights  ;  Robert  Jaffray,  West ;  C.  P.  Leg- 
gett,  West  End  ;  Richard  Drummond,  Westminster. 

After  the  calling  of  the  roll  Dr.  Briggs  continued 
his  argument. 

At  a  quarter  to  four  a  brief  intermission  was  taken,  when  435 
Dr.  Briggs  concluded  his  argument. 

Dr.  Briggs  raised  the  following  question,  viz. :  that  ac- 
cording to  the  Book  of  Discipline  the  Prosecution  have 
no  right  to  rebuttal. 

On  this  question  Dr.  Briggs  asked  for  a  ruling. 

The  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived,  it  was  resolved 
at  this  point  that  the  time  be  extended  fifteen  minutes. 
After  hearing  from  the  parties  the  Moderator  ruled : 


120 

1.  That  the  usage  in  such  cases  is  against  the  point 
which  is  raised. 

2.  That  usage  is  based  upon  the  law  of  the  Church, 
governing  complaints  and  appeals,  which  distinctly  give 
us  this  order  of  the  opening,  and  the  closing  being  on  the 
part  of  those  who  present  their  case,  the  greater  includ- 
ing the  less. 

3.  That  the  parties  cannot  have  been  said  to  have  been 
heard  until  the  Prosecution  has  had  a  full  opportunity 
to  present  its  whole  case.  It  has  only  presented  a  part 
of  that  case  so  far.  It  has  taken  a  very  small  portion  of 
time  compared  with   that  accorded  to  the    defendant. 

436  You  have  heard  the  defendant  patiently  and  fully,  as 
you  should  have  done,  and  now,  in  the  view  of  the 
Moderator,  it  is  only  fair,  it  is  only  in  accordance  with 
our  usage  and  with  the  principles  of  the  Book,  that  the 
Prosecution  should  be  heard  fully,  but  not  presenting  new 
matter. 

An  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Moderator  was  then 
taken  ;  whereupon  the  Moderator's  decision  was  by  vote 
of  the  house  sustained. 

Under  the  rules  Rev.  Messrs.  Jos.  R.  Kerr  and  Shearer 
were,  by  unanimous  consent,  excused  for  to-morrow. 

After  reading  and  approving  the  minutes,  as  far  as 
written,  and  prayer,  Presbytery  took  a  recess  until  to- 
morrow, at  2  p.  m. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Cleric. 


437  New  York,  20th  December,  1892. 

Scotch  Church,  Tuesday,  Dec.  20th,  2  p.  m. 

Presbytery  met  after  recess  and  was  opened  with 
prayer. 

Present :  Ministers— John  C.  Bliss,  Mod. ;  Geo.  Alex- 
ander, Saml.  D.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi,  Anson  P. 
Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Fred.  G.  Beebe, 
Nicholas  Bjerring,  Robert  R.  Booth,  Saml.  Bowden,  T.  S. 


121 

Bradner,  Charles  A.  Briggs,  Geo.  W.  F.  Birch,  Francis 
Brown,  Walter  D.  Buchanan,  James  Chambers,  Edward 
L.  Clark,  Ira  S.  Dodd,  D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad  Doench, 
Wm.  Durant,  Thos.  Douglas,  Howard  Duffield,  John  H. 
Edwards,  Frank  F.  Ellinwood,  Henry  B.  Elliot,  Wm.  T. 
Elsing,  Charles  P.  Fagnani,  Henry  M.  Field,  Walter  B. 
Floyd,  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R.  Gillett, 
Henri  Grandlienard,  James  Hall,  A.  Woodruff  Halsey, 
Wm.  R.  Harshaw,  Thos.  S.  Hastings,  Edward  W.  Hitch- 
cock, James  H.  Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  Saml.  M.  Jack- 
son, A.  D.  Lawrence  Jewett,  Joseph  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B. 
King,  A.  Dunlop  King,  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  Theodore  Leon- 
hard,  Milton  S.  Littlefield,  John  C  Lowrie,  Daniel  E. 
Lorenz,  Wm.  M.  Martin,  Charles  P.  Mallery,  Francis  H. 
Marling,  Henry  T.  McEwen,  James  H.  Mcllvaine,  Alex. 
H.  McKinney,  Alex.  McLean,  Duncan  J.  McMillan, 
Horace  G.  Miller,  Geo.  J.  Mingins,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  James 
C.  Nightingale,  Geo.  Nixon,  Israel  H.  Northrup,  Dan.  H. 
Overton,  Levi  H.  Parsons,  James  G.  Patterson,  John  R. 
Paxton,  Edward  P.  Payson,  Geo.  S.  Pay  son,  Vincent  438 
Pisek,  Hugh  Pritchard,  James  S.  Ramsay,  Daniel  Red- 
mon,  Charles  S.  Robinson,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  Albert  G. 
Ruliffson,  Wm.  A.  Rice,  Robert  F.  Sample,  Joseph  San- 
derson, Joseph  A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  J.  B.  Shaw, 
Geo.  L.  Shearer,  Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton  M.  Smith,  Wm. 
C.  Stitt,  Charles  A.  Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sutton,  Alex.  W. 
Sproull,  Geo.  L.  Spining,  Ch.  L.  Thompson,  John  J. 
Thompson,  Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Henry  Van  Dyke,  Marvin 
R.  Vincent,  Fred.  E.  Voegelin,  Thomas  G.  Wall,  Abbott 
L.  R.  Waite,  W.  Scott  Watson,  Geo.  S.  Webster,  E.  N. 
White,  Livingston  Willard,  David  G.  Wylie. 

Elders — Moses  P.  Brown,  Adams  Memorial ;    James 
Tompkins,  Bethany  ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux,  Brick;  Alex. P. 
Ketcham,    Calvary ;    Wm.   Mickens,   Central ;    Andrew 
Robinson,  Christ;  James  McDowell,  East  Harlem;    fi 
Edwards  Rowland,  Fifth  Avenue  ;  Eugene  McJimpsey 
First ;   John  Mc William,  Fourth  ;  Geo.  E.  Sterry,  Uni- 
versity Place  ;  Saml.  Reeve,  Fourteenth  Street ;  Saml.  H.  439 
Willard,   Harlem ;    Joseph  Moorhead,    Knox ;    Ch.    H. 


122 

Woodbury,  Madison  Square ;  Robert  Johnson,  Morris- 
ania  First ;  Thomas  Anderson,  New  York  ;  G.  C.  King, 
North  ;  Henry  Q.  Hawley,  Park ;  James  E.  Ware,  Phil- 
lips ;  Geo.  C.  Lay,  Puritans  ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  River- 
dale  ;  Wm.  M.  Onderdonk,  Rutgers  ;  Robert  Houston, 
Scotch  ;  James  Anderson,  Seventh ;  Wm.  R.  Worrall, 
Thirteenth  Street ;  C.  E.  Garey,  Tremont ;  Thomas  Bond, 
University  Place ;  Robert  Gentle,  Union  Tabernacle ; 
Wm.  A.  Wheel ock,  Washington  Heights  ;  Robert  Jaffray, 
West ;  C.  P.  Leggett,  West  End  ;  Richard  Drummond, 
Westminster. 

After  the  calling  of  the  roll  the  Committee  appointed 
to  bring  in  an  answer  to  the  protest  made  December  13, 

440  1892,  presented  the  following  answer,  viz. :  The  Presby- 
tery desires  to  record  the  following  answer  in  accordance 
with  Section  106  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  to  the  protest 
signed  by  A.  P.  Ketcham,  W.  G.  T.  Shedd,  Geo.  L.  Shearer 
and  others  against  action  of  this  Judicatory  relating  to  the 
record  of  evidence  in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.  D. 

I.  The  Presbytery  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that 
though  the  protest  is  declared  to  be  made  against  "injur- 
ious and  erroneous  acts  and  proceedings,"  it  cites  but 
one  act  against  which  protest  is  lawful.  Section  104  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline  gives  to  members  of  a  minority 
the  right  to  protest.  A  minority  exists  only  when  some 
question  has  been  decided  by  a  majority  vote.  The  only 
such  action  related  in  the  protest  is  the  vote  of  the  Pres- 
bytery to  strike  out  the  record  of  a  request  made  by  the 
Prosecution.  Against  this  action  only,  among  the  pro- 
ceedings set  forth  in  the  protest,  is  the  protest  lawful. 
But  it  is  noteworthy  that,  of  the  four  reasons  assigned  by 
the  protestants,  not  one  relates  to  the  question  whether 
the  Presbytery  erred  in  striking  out  the  record  of  this 
request. 

441  The  reasons  therefore  do  not  sustain  the  protest,  and 
it  might  be  enough  to  record  the  fact  as  a  sufficient 
legal  answer  to  the  protest.  But  inasmuch  as  the  protest 
calls  in  question  certain  other  proceedings,  on  alleged 


123 

grounds  of  justice  and  error,  the  Presbytery  deems  it  wise 
and  proper,  notwithstanding  this  technical  defect,  to 
cover  in  its  answer  all  the  matters  embraced  in  the  pro- 
test. 

II.  The  Presbytery  finds  the  relation  of  facts  in  the 
protest  to  be  incomplete,  inaccurate  and  misleading  in 
several  particulars,  and  desires  to  supplement  and  correct 
it,  as  follows  : 

(a)  The  matter  now  appearing  on  pp.  448-468  of  the 
stenographer's  official  notes  and  in  the  printed  sheets  in- 
serted at  p.  468  of  the  said  notes,  and  referred  to  in  the 
protest,  was  all  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  Presbytery, 
was  placed  in  the  hands  of  each  member  of  the  Presby- 
tery and  of  the  Prosecution  in  printed  form,  was  offered 
by  the  defendant  as  evidence,  and  was  sufficiently  de- 
scribed and  identified  by  him. 

(b)  The  defendant  was  prepared  and  ready  to  read  the 
evidence  if  the  Presbytery  so  desired,  and  omitted  the  442 
reading  of  it  solely  to  save  the  time  of  the  Presbytery, 
already  severely  taxed. 

(c)  In  this,  the  defendant  evidently  acted  in  good  faith, 
and  with  the  simple  desire  to  meet  the  convenience  of  the 
Presbytery,  and  the  Presbytery  so  understood  and  ac- 
quiesced without  a  word  of  dissent. 

(d)  After  the  defendant  had  offered  all  his  evidence, 
including  the  evidence  which  has  been  made  the  occasion 
of  protest,  the  Presbytery  voted  ' '  that  the  documentary 
evidence  which  has  been  offered  by  the  defendant  be 
considered  competent."  (Minutes  of  Presbytery,  Decem- 
ber 5,  1892,  p.  384.) 

(d)  The  contents  of  the  pages  indicated,  in  the  stenog- 
rapher's report,  are  therefore  not  "new  matter  which 
purports  to  be  evidence,"  as  the  protest  terms  them,  nor 
were  they  introduced  after  the  time  for  the  lawful  intro- 
duction of  evidence  was  past,  but  they  are  a  part  of  the 
evidence  introduced  by  the  defendant  lawfully  and  at 
the  proper  time. 

(/)  Assuming  it  to  be  true  that  the  matter  on  pages 
448-468  of  the  stenographer's  report  was  there  recorded    443 


124 

oy  the  authority  of  the  Moderator,  it  is  evident  that  the 
authority  of  the  Moderator,  in  this,  gave  effect  to  the  will 
of  the  Presbytery  indicated  by  its  acquiescence  and  con- 
sent aforesaid. 

(g)  In  addition  to  his  general  powers  as  representative 
of  the  Presbytery,  the  Moderator  had  the  special  powers 
vested  in  him  as  Chairman  and  representative  of  the 
Committee  appointed  November  28,  1892,  "to  supervise 
the  official  stenographer's  report  of  the  proceedings." 
(Minutes  of  November  28,  1892,  p.  347.) 

(h)  There  is  no  evidence  in  the  stenographer's  notes  or 
elsewhere,  that  the  contents  of  pp.  448-468,  of  said  notes 
or  any  part  of  them,  were  "inserted"  in  any  other  sense 
than  would  properly  apply  to  all  the  stenographer' s  ma- 
terials, including  his  short-hand  notes  and  such  written 
or  printed  documents  as  are  placed  in  his  hands,  which 
are  put  in  the  type-written  form  ' '  in  the  interval  between 
two  sessions  of  the  judicatory." 
444  (i)  The  fifteen  sheets  of  printed  matter  referred  to  in 
the  protest  were  introduced  by  the  direction  of  the  Mod- 
erator in  open  Presbytery,  and  with  the  full  accord  of 
Presbytery ;  the  Moderator  making  his  decision  distinctly, 
stating  it  repeatedly,  and  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that 
his  decision  was  subject  to  an  appeal  to  the  house,  if  any 
one  should  appeal ;  and  neither  the  Prosecution  nor  any 
one  of  the  protestants,  nor  any  other  member  of  the  judi- 
catory, made  a  motion,  or  showed  a  desire  to  take  such 
an  appeal.  (Minutes  of  Dec.  6,  1892,  pp.  389,  390  ;  Stenog- 
rapher's Report,  pp.  577,  578.) 

(J)  He  previously  decided  that  evidence  need  not  be 
read  to  the  Presbytery  in  order  to  be  competent  evidence 
(Minutes  Nov.  30,  1892,  pp.  362,  370  ;  stenographer's  re- 
port, pp.  297,  314,  364),  and  the  action  concerning  the  evi- 
dence now  under  consideration  accorded  with  that  de- 
cision. 

(jfe)  The  Presbytery  calls  attention  to  the  statement  of 
the  protest  that  "amotion  having  been  duly  made  and 
seconded,  that  the  judicatory  should  comply  with  the  re- 
quest of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  and  strike  out  all 


125 

such  matter  from  the  stenographer's  report,  such  motion 
was  declared  out  of  order  by  the  Moderator,  and  was  not 
put  to  the  house,"  as  an  erroneous  statement,  in  that, 
it  appears  from  the  stenographer's  notes,  no  such  motion  445 
was  made.  The  only  motion  offered  in  behalf  of  the 
Prosecution  in  this  matter  was  the  motion  to  have  their 
request  entered  on  the  minutes  ;  an  amendment  was 
offered  to  the  effect  that  their  request  be  excluded  from 
the  minutes,  and  the  motion  passed  in  the  amended  form. 
(Stenographic  report,  pp.  582,  591,  662,  681,  684,  696,  es- 
pecially pp.  664,  671  and  672.) 

III.  The  reasons  assigned  in  the  protest  are,  as  already 
indicated,  totally  irrelevant,  since  they  have  no  connection 
with  the  only  part  of  the  proceedings  referred  to  against 
which  protest  is  lawful,  viz.:  the  decision  of  Presbytery 
to  exclude  from  the  record  a  request  made  by  the  Prose- 
cution. But  they  embody  criticisms  of  action  taken  by 
the  Moderator  and  the  Presbytery  which  the  Presbytery 
is  unwilling  to  pass  by  without  notice. 

(a)  The  first   "reason"    is,   in  the   judgment  of  the 
Presbytery,  an  invalid  criticism,  because,  while  the  sten- 
ographer's report  of  the  proceedings  should  be  an  exact  446 
record,  that  report  may  and  properly  should  include 
whatever  is  received  and  taken  as  read  and  spoken,  and 

so  given  the  effect  of  read  or  spoken  words.  The  evidence 
under  consideration  was,  to  save  valuable  time,  offered 
without  reading  and  taken  as  read. 

(b)  The  second  "reason"  is,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Presbytery,  an  invalid  criticism,  because  no  "new  matter" 
was  introduced  into  the  stenographer's  notes,  because  the 
matter  referred  to  had  been  brought  before  the  Presbytery, 
and  was  properly  introduced,  and  because  said  matter  is 
actually  evidence  in  the  case,  admitted  by  the  Presbytery 
as  competent.  The  Presbytery  is  therefore  unable  to  see 
how  there  can  be  therein  anything  "misleading,  erroneous 
and  irregular,"  or  anything  "that  may  greatly  hamper, 
embarrass  and  possibly  vitiate  the  entire  judicial  pro- 
ceedings." 


126 

(c)  The  third  "reason"  is,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Presbytery,  an  invalid  criticism,  because  the  accuracy  and 
integrity  of  the  official  stenographic  report  of  the  pro- 
ceedings were  in  fact  secured  by  the  incorporation  of  the 
said  matter  in  the  said  report,  and  would  not  have  been 
secured  otherwise. 

447  (d)  The  fourth  "reason"  is,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Presbytery,  an  invalid  criticism,  because  the  Presbytery 
is  unable  to  see  how  "the  entire  records  of  this  important 
case  may  be  rendered  invalid  and  ineffectual,"  by  the 
action  criticised,  unless  the  incorporation  in  the  record  of 
all  the  evidence  which  the  judicatory  has  admitted  as 
competent,  instead  of  the  admission  of  a  part,  should 
have  the  effect  of  making  the  record  "invalid  and  inef- 
fectual," which  seems  absurd. 

IV.  Although  a  protest,  with  relevant  reasons,  against 
the  action  of  the  Presbytery  in  excluding  the  record  of 
the  request  of  the  Prosecution  from  the  minutes  of  Pres- 
bytery, would  be  technically  in  order,  it  seems  surprising 
that  any  should  suppose  the  record  of  the  request  to  be 
admissible. 

{a)  No  action  on  the  request  was  taken,  or  even  pro- 
posed, and  the  minutes  do  not  include  a  record  of  action 
not  taken. 

448  (J>)  The  request  was  to  the  effect  that  the  said  twenty 
pages  of  the  stenographer's  notes  and  the  said  fifteen 
additional  printed  sheets  should  be  stricken  from  the 
official  stenographic  record,  "  and  that  the  accused  should 
not  be  permitted  to  refer  to  or  use  the  contents  of  said 
twenty  pages  of  stenographer's  notes,  or  of  the  said 
fifteen  additional  printed  sheets,  or  any  of  the  extracts, 
documents  or  books  in  either  of  them  contained,  recited 
or  referred  to,  as  evidence  upon  the  trial,  or  in  any 
manner  whatever,  before  this  judicatory."  Notwithstand- 
ing the  facts  that  the  Presbytery  had  by  vote  declared 
this  with  the  other  evidence  offered  by  the  defendant  to 
be  competent  evidence,  and  that  it  was  actually  a  part  of 
the  lawful  evidence  presented  by  the  defendant,  and  that 
the  Moderator  had  explicitly  so  recognized  it  and  secured 


127 

its  embodiment  in  the  official  stenographic  record  as 
aforesaid,  and  that  no  appeal  had  been  taken  from  the 
decision  of  the  Moderator  that  it  should  be  embodied 
therein,  and  that  for  these  reasons  the  Prosecution  had 
no  right  to  make  the  request,  and  that  the  Moderator  had 
ruled  that  the  request  was  not  in  order,  and  matters 
declared  to  be  not  in  order  have  no  place  on  the  official 
record  of  proceedings. 

(c)  The  attempt  to  secure  the  record  of  the  said  request  449 
under  the  guise  of  the  record  of  an  exception,  which 
exception  the  prosecution  were  entitled,  if  they  thought 
best,  to  take  to  any  part  of  the  proceedings  that  they 
disapproved  was  improper  and  out  of  order. 

V.  Inasmuch  as, 

(a)  The  failure  to  include  in  the  official  stenographer's 
report  a  part  of  the  evidence  which  had  been  offered  by  the 
defendant,  taken  as  read  by  the  acquiescence  and  consent 
of  the  judicatory,  and  by  vote  accepted  as  competent, 
would  have  been  an  irregular  act,  and  one  of  singular  in- 
justice to  the  defendant ;  and  (b)  the  inclusion  of  the  said 
evidence  in  the  said  report  involved  no  wrong,  hardship 
or  injustice  to  the  prosecution,  and  the  prosecution  there- 
fore had  no  just  ground  for  desiring  that  it  be  not  in- 
cluded, or  for  seeking  to  deprive  the  defendant  of  his 
right  to  use  it  for  the  purposes  of  his  defense  before  the 
judicatory,  and  (c)  the  action  and  the  decisions  of  the 
Moderator,  in  reference  to  this  matter,  and  the  acquies- 
cence of  the  Presbytery  therein,  appear  to  have  been 
equitable  and  right,  and  (d)  the  exclusion  of  the  request 
of  the  prosecution  from  the  minutes,  by  vote  of  the 
Presbytery,  was  in  accordance  with  precedent  and  the 
requirements  of  the  case. 

Therefore,  in  view  of  all  the  foregoing  considerations, 
the  Presbytery  is  unable  to  see  any  justification  for  the 
protest,  or  any  proper  ground  for  the  criticisms  contained 
therein. 

The  following  persons  were  excused  under  the  rule  and 
by  unanimous  consent,  for  being  absent  yesterday  :  Rev. 
Messrs.  S.  B.  Rossiter,  W.  L.  Moore,  W.  C.  Stitt,  J.  H. 


450 


128 

Mcllvaine,  A.  H.  McKinney,  with  Thomas  Anderson. 
For  to-day  the  following  were  thns  excused :  J.  R.  Paxton, 
W.  W.  Atterbury,  with  Elders  A.  P.  Ketchara  and 
Samuel  Eeeve.  For  to-morrow  C.  S.  Robinson  and  N. 
Bj  erring. 

The  Rev.  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  of  the  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee, was  then  heard.  At  twenty-five  minutes  of  four 
a  brief  intermission  was  taken,  when  Dr.  Lampe  con- 
tinued his  argument  till  recess. 

The  Committee  of  Arrangements  presented  suggestions 
for  taking  the  vote.  The  report,  was,  on  motion,  laid  on 
the  table  until  to-morrow. 

The  minutes  were  read  and  approved  as  far  as  written. 

Presbytery  now  took  a  recess.    Concluded  with  prayer. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  ClerTc. 

451  New  York,  21st  December,  1892. 

Scotch  Church,  2  p.  m. 

Presbytery  met  and  was  opened  with  prayer. 

Present:  Ministers— John  C.  Bliss,  Moderator;  Geo. 
Alexander,  Saml.  D.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi,  Anson 
P.  Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Fred.  G.  Beebe, 
Geo.  W.  F.  Birch,  Nicholas  Bjerring,  Robt.  R.  Booth, 
Saml.  Bowden,  Thos.  S.  Bradner,  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
Francis  Brown,  Walter  D.  Buchanan,  James  Chambers, 
Edward  L.  Clark,  Ira  S.  Dodd,  D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad 
Doench,  William  Durant,  Thos.  Douglas,  Howard  Duf- 
field,  John  H.  Edwards,  Henry  B.  Elliot,  Wm.  T.  Elsing, 
Charles  P.  Fagnani,  Henry  M.  Field,  Walter  B.  Floyd, 
Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R.  Gillett,  Henri 
Grandlienard,  James  Hall,  A.  W.  Halsey,  Wm.  R.  Har- 
shaw,  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Edward  W.  Hitchcock,  James 
H.  Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  Saml.  M.  Jackson,  A.  D.  L. 
Jewett,  Jos.  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B.  King,  A.  Dunlop  King, 
Jos.  J.  Lampe,  Theo.  Leonhard,  Milton  S.  Littlefield, 
John  C.    Lowrie,   Daniel  E.   Lorenz,   Wm.   M.   Martin, 

452  Charles  P.  Mallery,  Francis  H.  Marling,  Henry  T.  Mc- 


129 

Ewen,  James  H.  Mcllvaine,  A.  H.  McKinney,  Alex. 
McLean,  Duncan  J.  McMillan,  Horace  G.  Miller,  Geo.  J. 
Mingins,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  J.  C.  Nightingale,  Geo.  Nixon, 
I.  H.  Northrup,  Dan.  H.  Overton,  Levi  H.  Parsons, 
James  G.  Patterson,  Edward  P.  Payson,  Geo.  S.  Payson, 
Vincent  Pisek,  Hugh  Pritchard,  James  S.  Ramsay, 
Daniel  Redmon,  Charles  S.  Robinson,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter, 
A.  G.  Ruliffson,  Wm.  A.  Rice,  Robt.  P.  Sample,  Jos.  San- 
derson, Jos.  A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  J.  Balcom  Shaw, 
Geo.  L.  Shearer,  Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton  M.  Smith,  Wm. 
C.  Stitt,  Ch.  A.  Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sutton,  Alex.  W. 
Sproull,  Geo.  L.  Spining,  C.  L.  Thompson,  John  J. 
Thompson,  Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Henry  Van  Dyke,  Marvin 
R.  Vincent,  Fred.  E.  Voegelin,  Thomas  G.  Wall,  A.  L. 
R.  Waite,  W.  Scott  Watson,  Geo.  S.  Webster,  E.  N. 
White,  L.  Willard,  David  G.  Wylie. 

Elders — James  Tompkins,  Bethany  ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux, 
Brick  ;  A.  P.  Ketcham,  Calvary  ;  Wm.  Mickens,  Central ;  453 
James  McDowell,  East  Harlem ;  H.  Edwards  Rowland, 
Fifth  Avenue  ;  Eugene  Mc Jimpsey,  First ;  John  Mc Wil- 
liam, Fourth  ;  Geo.  E.  Sterry,  Fourth  Avenue  ;  Saml.  H. 
Willard,  Harlem ;  Saml.  Reeve,  Fourteenth  Street ; 
Joseph  Moorhead,  Knox  ;  Chas.  H.  Woodbury,  Madison 
Square ;  Robert  Johnson,  Morrisania  First ;  Thomas 
Anderson,  New  York ;  G.  C.  King,  North ;  Henry  Q. 
Hawley,  Park  ;  James  E.  Ware,  Phillips ;  Geo.  C.  Lay, 
Puritans ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  Riverdale ;  Wm.  M. 
Onderdonk,  Rutgers ;  Robert  Houston,  Scotch  ;  James 
Anderson,  Seventh  ;  Wm.  R.  Worrall,  Thirteenth  Street ; 
C.  E.  Garey,  Tremont;  Thomas  Bond,  University  Place; 
Robert  Gentle,  Union  Tabernacle;  Wm.  A.  Wheelock, 
Washington  Heights  ;  Robert  Jaffray,  West ;  C.  P.  Leg- 
gett,  West  End  ;  Richard  Drummond,  Westminster. 

After  the  calling  of  the  roll,  Dr.  Briggs  took  exception  454 
to  the  proceedings  of  yesterday,  as  follows  : 

I  beg  leave  to  take  exception  to  that  part  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Presbytery,  of  yesterday,  recorded  in  the 
stenographical  report,  which  permitted  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Lampe,  arguing  on  behalf  of  the   Prosecution,   under 


130 

the  cloak  of  a  rebuttal,  to  introduce  new  evidence  and 
new   matter,    and,  in   large    measure,    to    reargue    the 
-Amended  Charges  and  Specifications  apart  from  and  with- 
out regard  to  the  argument  of  the  accused  ;  in  that  (1)  he 
introduced  new  evidence  without  the  permission  of  Pres- 
bytery,  and    without    notification    to    the    accused,   as 
follows:    Henry  B.   Smith's  Introduction  to  Christian 
Theology;    Henry  B.   Smith's  Sermon  on  Inspiration; 
Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  1892  ;  Article  in  the 
Congregationalist,  February  21,  1889;  John  Ball's  Cate- 
chism ;  The  Bible  Doctrine  of  Inspiration ;  Farrar's  Life 
of  St.  Paul ;  Homiletical  Review,  May,  1891 ;  Westcott's 
Introduction  to  the  Gospels  ;  D'  Aubigne's  History  of  the 
455  Reformation  ;  Life  of  Calvin,  chap.  IV. ;  and  also  a  con- 
siderable number  of  extracts  from  the  works  of  Luther 
and  Calvin.     (2)  In  that  he  introduced  new  matter,  as,  for 
example,  an  argument  on  the  metaphysical  categories 
from  the  usage  of  Aristotle  and  Kant ;  an  argument  from 
the  use  of  the  Old  Testament  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles  ; 
an  argument  from  the  dynamic  theory  of  inspiration  ;  an 
argument  from  the  stress  laid  upon  single  words  of  the 
Old  Testament  by  New  Testament  writers.     (3)  In  that 
he  argued  in  more  than  three-fourths  of  his  argument 
against  the  statements  of  the  Inaugural  Address,  the  re- 
sponse to  the  Original  Charges,  the  lectures  on  the  Bible, 
the  Church  and  the  Reason,  and  the  other  writings  of  the 
accused,  and  in  not  more  than  one-fourth  of  it  was  it  an 
effort  in  rebuttal  of  the  argument  of  the  accused,  viz. : 
Stenographical  Report  (a)  pp.  1120-1126,  as  far  as  "I 
is  of  the  utmost  importance,"  (b)  p.  1131,  beginning  with 
" Dr.  Briggs'  Argument,"  as  far  as  "It is  not  our  faith," 
1133  ;  (c)  p.  1136,  as  far  as  "  through  the  Word  of  God," 
p.  1137 ;  (d)  the  reference  to  Isaiah  viii.,  20,  on  p.  1141 ; 
456  (e)  and  to  I.  John  v.,  10,  on  pp.  1144-1145  ;  (/)  pp.  1147- 
1152,  as  far  as  "  We  are  not  raising  the  question"  ;  (g) 
a  brief  allusion  to  my  interpretation  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  I.,  1,  on  p.  1163  ;  (h)  a  brief  reference  to  passages 
cited  by  me  from  Luther,  on  p.  1181 ;  (i)  and  to  passages 
cited  by  me  from  Calvin,  pp.  1185-1186  ;  and  of  these,  (c), 


131 

(d)  and  (i)  may  have  been  written  in  view  of  the  evidence 
adduced  in  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,  before 
the  delivery  of  the  argument  for  the  defense. 

Dr.  Lampe,  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  now  contin- 
ued his  argument. 

At  twenty-five  minutes  of  four  an  intermission  of  a  few 
minutes  was  taken,  when  Dr.  Lampe  continued  until 
recess. 

Under  the  rule  and  by  unanimous  consent  the  follow- 
ing were  excused  for  a  part  of  to-day' s  session :  Rev.  W. 
W.  Atterbury  and  Elders  J.  E.  Ware  and  Andrew 
Robinson.  The  Rev.  A.  W.  Halsey  was  also  excused 
for  a  part  of  to-morrow. 

After  reading  and  approving  the  minutes  as  far  as 
written,  Presbytery  took  a  recess. 

Concluded  with  prayer. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 

New  York,  22nd  December,  1892. 
Scotch  Church,  2  p.  m. 

Presbytery  met  after  recess  and    was    opened    with  457 
prayer. 

Present :  Ministers — John  C.  Bliss,  Mod'r. ;  Geo.  Alex- 
ander, Saml.  D.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi,  Anson  P. 
Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Fred.  G.  Beebe, 
Nicholas  Bjerring,  Robert  R.  Booth,  Saml.  Bowden, 
Thomas  S.  Bradner,  Francis  Brown,  Walter  D.  Buchanan, 
James  Chambers,  Edward  L.  Clark,  John  B.  Devins,  Ira 
S.  Dodd,  D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad  Doench,  Wm.  Durant, 
Thomas  Douglas,  Howard  Duffield,  John  H.  Edwards, 
Frank  F.  Ellin  wood,  Henry  B.  Elliot,  Wm.  T.  Elsing, 
Charles  P.  Fagnani,  Henry  M.  Field,  Walter  B.  Floyd, 
Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford,  Ch.  R.  Gillett,  Henri  L. 
Grandlienard,  James  Hall,  A.  Woodruff  Halsey,  Wm. 
R.  Harshaw,  Thos.  S.  Hastings,  Edward  W.  Hitchcock, 
James  H.  Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  Saml.  M.  Jackson, 


132 

A.  D.  Lawrence  Jewett,  Joseph  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B.  King, 

458  A.  Dunlop  King,  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  Theo.  Leonhard, 
Milton  S.  Littlefield,  John  C.  Lowrie,  Daniel  E.  Lorenz, 
Wm.  M.  Martin,  Charles  P.  Mallery,  Francis  H.  Marling, 
Henry  T.  McEwen,  James  H.  Mcllvaine,  Alexander  H. 
McKinney,  Alex.  McLean,  Duncan  McMillan,  Horace  GJ-. 
Miller,  Geo.  J.  Mingins,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  James  C. 
Nightingale,  Geo.  Nixon,  Israel  H.  Northrup,  Daniel  H. 
Overton,  Levi  H.  Parsons,  James  G.  Patterson,  Ed.  P. 
Payson,  Geo.  S.  Payson,  Vincent  Pisek,  Hugh  Pritchard, 
J.  S.  Ramsay,  Daniel  Redmon,  Ch.  S.  Robinson,  Stealy 

B.  Rossiter,  Albert  G.  Ruliffson,  Wm.  A.  Rice,  Joseph 
Sanderson,  Jos.  A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  J.  Balcom 
Shaw,  Geo.  L.  Shearer,  Andrew  Shiland,  W.  M.  Smith, 
Wm.  C.  Stitt,  Ch.  A.  Stoddard,  J.  F.  Sutton,  Alex.  W. 
Sproull,  Geo.  L.  Spining,  Charles  L.  Thompson,  John  J. 
Thompson,  Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Henry  Van  Dyke,  Marvin 
R.  Vincent,  Fred.  E.  Voegelin,  Thomas  G.  Wall,  Abbott 
L.  R.  Waite,  W.Scott  Watson,  Geo.  S.  Webster,  Erskine 
N.  White,  Livingston  Willard,  David  G.  Wylie. 

459  Elders — James  Tompkins,  Bethany  ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux, 
Brick  ;  Alex.  P.  Ketcham,  Calvary  ;  Wm.  Mickens,  Cen- 
tral ;  Andrew  Robinson,  Christ ;  James  McDowell,  East 
Harlem ;  H.  Edwards  Rowland,  Fifth  Avenue ;  Eugene 
McJimpsey,  First ;  John  McWilliam,  Fourth ;  Geo.  E. 
Sterry,  Fourth  Avenue  ;  Saml.  Reeve,  Fourteenth  Street ; 
Saml.  H.  Willard,  Harlem ;  Jos.  Moorhead,  Knox ;  Ch. 
H.  Woodbury,  Madison  Square  ;  Robert  Johnson,  First 
Morrisania ;  Thomas  Anderson,  New  York  ;  G.  C.  King, 
North ;  Henry  Q.  Hawley,  Park ;  James  E.  Ware, 
Phillips ;  Geo.  C.  Lay,  Puritans ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge, 
Riverdale  ;  Wm.  M.  Onderdonk,  Rutgers  ;  Robert  Hous- 

460  ton,  Scotch  ;  James  Anderson,  Seventh ;  C.  E.  Garey, 
Tremont ;  Wm.  R.  Worrall,  Thirteenth  Street ;  Thomas 
Bond,  University  Place  ;  Robert  Gentle,  Union  Taberna- 
cle ;  Wm.  A.  Wheelock,  Washington  Heights ;  Robert 
Jaffray,  West ;  C.  P.  Leggett,  West  End  ;  Richard  Drum- 
mond,  Westminster. 


133 

After  the  calling  of  the  roll  Dr.  Briggs  took  exception 
to  a  portion  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday,  as  follows, 
viz.: 

I  beg  leave  to  take  exception  to  that  part  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  yesterday  recorded  in  the  stenographical  re- 
port, which  permitted  the  Rev.  Dr.  Lampe,  arguing  in 
behalf  of  the  Prosecution,  under  the  cloak  of  a  rebuttal, 
to  introduce  new  evidence,  and  new  matter,  and  in  large 
measure  to  reargue  the  Amended  Charges  and  Specifica- 
tions, apart  from  and  without  regard  to  the  argument  of 
the  accused  ;  in  that  (1)  he  introduced  new  evidence  with- 
out the  permission  of  Presbytery  and  without  notifi- 
cation to  the  accused,  as  follows  : 

John  Goodwin's  Divine  Authority  of  the  Scriptures,  461 
Capel' s  Remains,  Matthew  Poole's  Commentary,  Baxter's 
Reasons  of  the  Christian  Religion,  Chillingworth'  s  Works, 
Vol.  1 ;  Henry  Hammond's  Paraphrases,  Lightfoot's 
Difficulties  of  Scripture,  Timothy  Dwight's  Sermons, 
Jonathan  Dickinson' s  Sermons,  Samuel  Davies'  s  Sermons, 
Jonathan  Edwards's  Works,  S.  S.  Smith's  Principles  of 
Natural  and  Revealed  Religion,  Sprague's  Annals, 
McWhorter's  Sermons,  Witherspoon' s  Works,  Ashbel 
Green's  Lectures  on  the  Shorter  Catechism,  Archibald 
Alexander' s  Canon,  Gardiner's  Spring' s  Bible  not  of  Man, 
Albert  Barnes's  Commentaries,  Skinner's  Discussions  in 
Theology,  Augustine's  Letters,  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  1892, 
Liddon's  Divinity  of  our  Lord. 

(2)  In  that  he  introduced  new  matter,  as  for  example  : 
An  argument  on  verbal  inspiration  and  dictation  ;  an 
argument  against  an  errant  Bible  ;  an  argument  against 
a  statement  of  the  Response  ;  an  argument  against  ration- 
alistic critics  ;  an  argument  from  predictive  prophecy ;  an  462 
argument  against  the  theory  of  accommodation  ;  an  argu- 
ment against  the  errancy  of  Jesus. 

(3)  In  that  he  argued  in  more  than  two -thirds  of  his 
argument  against  the  statements  of  the  Inaugural  Address, 
the  Response  to  the  Original  Charges,  the  lectures  on  the 
Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason,  and  the  other  writings 


134 

of  the  accused,  and  in  not  more  than  one-third  of  it  can 
be  recognized  as  an  effort  in  rebuttal  of  the  argument  of 
the  accused,  and  in  this  part  the  argument  can  be  con- 
sidered as  rebuttal  only  in  so  far  as  the  argument  for  the 
defense  included  certain  portions  of  "the  Bible,  the 
Church,  and  the  Reason,"  and  all  of  this,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  two  lines,  "  This  is  substantially  the  view  of 
Dr.  Briggs,  as  shown  by  the  documents  put  in  your  hands 
by  him"  (p.  1241,  stenographer's  report);  and  possibly 
of  these  also  was  probably  composed  before  the  delivery 
of  the  argument  for  the  defense,  for  there  is  no  other 
reference  to  that  argument  in  the  argument  of  Dr.  Lampe 
of  yesterday. 

463  At  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Briggs  it  was  resolved  that 
Dr.  Lampe  have  power  to  incorporate  in  the  stenograph- 
er's  notes  his  printed  argument  as  presented  to  the  house, 
including  the  portions  not  spoken  to  the  Court,  for  the 
purpose  of  saving  time. 

Dr.  Lampe  concluded  his  argument. 

Under  the  rule  and  by  unanimous  consent  Dr.  Jewett 
was  excused  for  absence  from  the  session  of  Wednesday. 

Elder  A.  P.  Ketcham  was  also  excused  from  attendance 
at  the  session  of  Thursday. 

It  was  resolved  that  the  Presbytery  now  give  the 
defendant  an  opportunity  to  reply.  Dr.  Briggs  was  then 
heard. 

After  an  intermission  of  ten  minutes  the  Moderator 
decided  that  the  hearing  of  the  parties  is  now  closed. 

464  The  Prosecuting  Committee  excepts,  and  asks  to  have 
entered  on  the  record  an  exception  to  the  decision  of  the 
Moderator,  after  hearing  Dr.  Briggs,  and  without  hearing 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  in  reply  thereto,  that  the 
hearing  of  the  parties  is  closed. 

The  Committee  of  Arrangements  made  the  following 
report,  which  was  on  motion  adopted. 

1.  That  when  the  parties  have  been  heard  the  Presby- 
tery adjourn  to  the  Lecture  Room. 

2.  That  the  Stated  Clerk  be  requested  to  submit  to  the 
Court  a  list  of  the  ministers  and  elders  entitled  to  vote. 


135 

3.  That  tickets  of  admission  be  issued  to  members  of 
the  Court. 

It  was  resolved  that  all  the  names  that  are  in  question 
be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Leave  of  Absence,  and  that 
they  report  to  the  Court  on  reassembling.  The  names  in 
question  presented  were  the  Rev.  Messrs.  John  R.  Pax- 
ton,  Nathaniel  W.  Conkling,  Wm.  G.  T.  Shedd,  Charles 
H.  Parkhurst,  Frank  F.  Ellinwood  and  Charles  H.  Tyn- 
dall  and  Elder  Moses  P.  Brown. 

The  time  was  extended  for  half  an  hour. 

For  the  orderly  conduct  of  the  Court  in  taking  the  465 
vote,  a  paper  was  presented,  and  on  motion  laid  on  the 
table  until  the  next  meeting  of  the  Court. 

It  was  now  resolved  to  take  a  recess  until  next  Wed- 
nesday, at  2  p.  m. 

After  reading  and  approving  the  minutes  as  far  as 
written,  and  prayer,  Presbytery  took  recess. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 


Lecture  Room, 
Scotch  Church,  December  28,  2  p.  m. 

Presbytery  met  and  was  opened  with  prayer. 

Present :  Ministers — John  C.  Bliss,  Moderator ;  Geo. 
Alexander,  Samuel  D.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi, 
Anson  P.  Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Fred.  G. 
Beebe,  Robert  R.  Booth,  Thomas  S.  Bradner,  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  Francis  Brown,  Walter  D.  Buchanan,  James 
Chambers,  Edward  L.  Clark,  John  B.  Devins,  Ira  S. 
Dodd,  D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad  Doench,  Wm.  Durant, 
Thos.  Douglas,  Howard  Duffield,  John  H.  Edwards,  Henry 
B.  Elliot,  Wm.  T.  Elsing,  Charles  P.  Fagnani,  Henry  M. 
Field,  Walter  B.  Floyd,  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford, 
Charles  R.  Gillett,  Henri  L.  Grandlienard,  A.  Woodruff 
Halsey,  Wm.  R.  Harshaw,  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Edward 
W.  Hitchcock,  James  H.  Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  A.  D. 
L.  Jewett,  Joseph  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B.  King,  A.  Dunlop 
King,  Theodore  Leonhard,  Milton  S.  Littlefield,  John  C. 


466 


136 

Lowrie,  D.  E.  Lorenz,  Wm.  M.  Martin,  Charles  P.  Mal- 
lery,  Francis  H.  Marling,  Henry  T.  McEwen,  James  H. 
Mcllvaine,  A.  H.  McKinney,  Alexander  McLean,  Duncan 
J.  McMillan,  Horace  G.  Miller,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  James  C. 
Nightingale,  Geo.  Nixon,  Israel  H.  Northrup,  Levi  H. 
Parsons,  James  G.  Patterson,  Edward  P.  Payson,  George 
S.  Payson,  Vincent  Pisek,  Hugh  Pritchard,  James  S. 
Ramsay,   Daniel  Redmon,  Charles  S.  Robinson,  Stealy 

B.  Rossiter,  Albert  G.  Ruliffson,  Wm.  A.  Rice,  Joseph 
Sanderson,  Joseph  A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  J.  Balcom 
Shaw,  Geo.  L.  Shearer,  Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton  M. 
Smith,  William  C.  Stitt,  Charles  A.  Stoddard,  J.    Ford 

467  Sutton,  Alexander  W.  Sproull,  Geo.  L.  Spining,  Charles 
L.  Thompson,  John  J.  Thompson,  Henry  Van  Dyke, 
Marvin  R.  Vincent,  Frederick  E.  Voegelin,  Thomas  G. 
Wall,  Abbott  L.  R.  Waite,  W.  Scott  Watson,  Geo.  S. 
Webster,  Erskine  N.  White,  Livingston  Willard,  David 
G.  Wylie. 

Elders — James  Tompkins,  Bethany  ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux, 
Brick ;  Alex.  P.  Ketcham,  Calvary  ;  Wm.  Mickens,  Cen- 
tral ;  Andrew  Robinson,  Christ ;  James  McDowell,  East 
Harlem ;  H.  Edwards  Rowland,  Fifth  Avenue  ;  Eugene 
McJimpsey,  First ;  John  Mc William,  Fourth ;  Geo.  S. 
Sterry,  Fourth  Avenue ;  Saml.  L.  Reeve,  Fourteenth  Street ; 
Saml.  H.  Willard,  Harlem  ;  Jos.  Moorhead,  Knox ;  Ch. 
H.  Woodbury,  Madison  Square ;  Robert  Johnson,  First 
Morrisania  ;  Thomas  Anderson,  New  York  ;  G.  C.  King, 
North  ;  Henry  Q.  Hawley,  Park ;  James  E.  Ware,  Phil- 

468  lips  ;  Geo.  C.  Lay,  Puritans  ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  River- 
dale  ;  Wm.  M.  Onderdonk,  Rutgers  R.;  Robert  Houston, 
Scotch  ;  James  Anderson,  Seventh ;  Wm.  R.  Worrall, 
Thirteenth  Street ;  C.  E.  Garey,  Tremont;  Thomas  Bond, 
University  Place ;  Robert  Gentle,  Union  Tabernacle;  Wm. 
A. Wheelock, Washington  Heights ;  Robert  Jaffray,  West; 

C.  P.  Leggett,  West  End ;  Richard  Drummond,  West- 
minster. 

After  the  calling  of  the  roll,  Dr.  Briggs  presented  the 
following  exception : 


137 

I  beg  leave  to  take  exception  to  that  part  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Presbytery  of  Thursday  last,  recorded  in 
the  stenographical  report,  which  permitted  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Lampe,  arguing  in  behalf  of  the  Prosecution,  under  the 
cloak  of  a  rebuttal,  to  introduce  new  evidence  and  new 
matter,  and  in  large  measure  to  reargue  the  Amended  469 
Charges  and  Specifications  apart  from  and  without  regard 
to  the  argument  of  the  accused ;  in  that  (1)  Dr.  Lampe 
introduced  new  evidence  without  the  permission  of  Pres- 
bytery and  without  notification  to  the  accused,  as  follows  : 

The  Andover  Review,  vol.  xiii. ;  Pepys'  Diary ;  F. 
Hall's  English  Adjectives  ;  F.  Hall's  Modern  English. 

(2)  In  that  Dr.  Lampe  introduced  new  matter,  e.  g.,  an 
argument  from  the  assumption  that  the  ministry  of  the 
word  will  not  continue  in  the  next  world,  and  an  argu- 
ment from  the  assumed  instantaneous  sanctification  of 
believers  at  the  second  advent. 

(3)  In  that  Dr.  Lampe  argued  for  the  most  part  against 
statements  of  the  Inaugural  Address,  the  response  to  the 
Original  Charges,  the  Article  of  Redemption  after  Death 
in  the  Magazine  of  Christian  Literature  ;  many  of  which, 
such  as  those  referring  to  race  redemption,  the  moral 
character  of  Abraham,  and  the  doctrine  of  election,  were  470 
not  included  in  the  Amended  Charges  ;  and  the  argument 

of  Dr.  Lampe  was  not  in  any  respect  a  rebuttal  of  the 
argument  of  the  accused,  of  which  argument  the  argu- 
ment of  Dr.  Lampe  on  the  Sixth  Charge  seems  entirely 
unconscious. 

(4)  In  that  Dr.  Lampe  argued  on  the  Seventh  Charge 
of  the  Amended  Charges  which  the  Presbytery  directed 
the  Prosecution  to  remove  from  the  list  of  Charges. 

(5)  In  that  Dr.  Lampe  argued  that  the  accused  was 
"under  the  influence  of  a  philosophical  principle  of 
Naturalism,"  a  matter  not  included  in  the  Charges. 

The  Committee  on  Leave  of  Absence  reported  as  di- 
rected at  the  last  meeting,  whereupon  Dr.  Ellinwood,  by 
consent  of  the  parties  and  the  house,  was  allowed  to  sit 
in  the  Court. 


138 

The  following  resolutions  were  adopted  for  the  taking 
of  the  vote  : 

Order  of  Procedure : 

471  I.  When  the  Court  has  gone  into  private  session,  mem- 
bers who  desire  shall  have  three  minutes  in  which  to  ex- 
press their  opinion  on  the  case,  the  roll  shall  be  called  in 
alphabetical  order,  and  members  not  desiring  to  speak 
shall  not  have  the  privilege  of  giving  their  time  to  others. 

2.  When  the  opinions  have  been  given  the  vote  on  the 
Charges  and  Specifications  shall  be  taken  without  debate, 
in  the  following  order :  (1)  The  vote  on  each  Charge  and 
its  Specification  shall  be  at  one  roll  call ;  (2)  Each  mem- 
ber shall  vote  (1)  on  the  Specifications,  and  (2)  on  the 
Charge  in  its  several  items,  the  vote  on  each  being  "  sus- 
tained" or  "not  sustained." 

3.  Following  the  vote  a  Committee  of  three  shall  be 
appointed  by  the  Moderator  to  bring  in  the  result  of  the 
vote  and  the  judgment  of  the  judicatory. 

An  intermission  of  ten  minutes  was  now  taken. 

After  intermission  it  was  resolved  that  in  case  the  vote 

472  is  not  concluded  on  Thursday  the  Court  must  convene  on 
Friday  afternoon. 

The  following  resolution  was  presented  and  a  motion 
to  lay  it  on  the  table  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  52  to  67,  viz. : 

The  Court  deems  it  proper  to  declare  that  a  vote  by  any 
member  of  this  Court  not  to  sustain  the  charges  preferred 
against  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  does  not  denote 
approval  of  his  theological  or  critical  views  or  of  the 
manner  in  which  they  have  been  advanced,  but  only  a 
judgment  that  the  specific  charges  have  not  been  estab- 
lished. 

After  discussion  it  was  resolved  that  the  resolution  be 
laid  on  the  table  until  after  the  vote  has  been  taken. 

It  was  resolved  that  we  now  take  a  recess,  to  meet  to- 
morrow in  the  Church  at  2  p.  m.  The  minutes  were  read 
and  approved  as  far  as  written. 

Concluded  with  prayer. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 


139 
New  York,  29th  December,  1892.  473 

Scotch  Church,  Thursday,  Dec.  29,  2  p.  m. 

Presbytery  met  and  was  opened  with  prayer. 

Present :  Ministers — John  C.  Bliss,  D.  D.,  Moderator ; 
Geo.  Alexander,  Samuel  D.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi, 
Anson  P.  Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Frederick 
G.  Beebe,  Nicholas  Bj erring,  Robert  R.  Booth,  Samuel 
Bowden,  Thomas  S.  Bradner,  Francis  Brown,  Walter  D. 
Buchanan,  James  Chambers,  Edward  L.  Clark,  John  B. 
Devins,  Ira  S.  Dodd,  D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad  Doench, 
Wm.  Durant,  Thomas  Douglas,  Howard  Duffield,  John 
H.  Edwards,  Henry  B.  Elliot,  Frank  F.  Ellinwood,  Wm. 
T.  Elsing,  Charles  P.  Fagnani,  Henry  M.  Field,  Walter 
B.  Floyd,  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R. 
Gillett,  Henri  L.  Grandlienard,  James  Hall,  A.  W.  Halsey, 
Wm.  R.  Harshaw,  Thos.  S.  Hastings,  Edward  W.  Hitch- 
cock, James  H.  Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  Samuel  M. 
Jackson,  A.  D.  L.  Jewett,  Joseph  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B.  King, 
A.  Dunlop  King,  Theodore  Leonhard,  Milton  S.  Littlefield, 
John  C.  Lowrie,  Daniel  E.  Lorenz,  Wm.  M.  Martin,  Charles  474 
P.  Mallery,  Francis  H.  Marling,  Henry  T.  McEwen,  James 
H.  Mcllvaine,  Alexander  H.  McKinney,  Alexander 
McLean,  Duncan  McMillan,  Horace  G.  Miller,  Geo.  J. 
Mingins,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  James  C.  Nightingale,  Geo. 
Nixon,  Israel  H.  Northrup,  Daniel  H.  Overton,  Levi  H. 
Parsons,  James  G.  Patterson,  Edward  P.  Payson,  Geo.  S. 
Payson,Vincent  Pisek,  Hugh  Pritchard,  James  S.  Ramsay, 
Daniel  Redmon,  Charles  S.  Robinson,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter, 
Albert  G.  Ruliffson,  Wm.  A.  Rice,  Joseph  Sanderson,  Jos. 
A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  J.  Balcom  Shaw,  Geo.  L.  Shearer, 
Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton  M.  Smith,  Wm.  C.  Stitt,  Charles 
A.  Stoddard,  J.  F.  Sutton,  Alexander  W.  Sproull,  Geo.  L. 
Spining,  Charles  L.  Thompson,  John  J.  Thompson,  Henry 
M.  Tyndall,  Henry  VanDyke,  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  Fred. 
E.  Voegelin,  Thomas  G.  Wall,  A.  L.  R.  Waite,  W.  Scott 
Watson,  Geo.  S.  Webster,  E.  N.  White,  Livingston 
Willard,  David  G.  Wylie. 


140 

Elders— James  Tompkins,  Bethany ;  Alex.  P.  Ketcham, 
Calvary  ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux,  Brick  ;  Wm.  Mickens,  Cen- 
tral ;  Andrew  Robinson,  Christ ;  James  McDowell,  East 

475  Harlem  ;  H.  Edwards  Rowland,  Fifth  Avenue ;  Eugene 
McJimpsey,  First ;  John  Mc William,  Fourth ;  Geo.  E. 
Sterry,  Fourth  Avenue  ;  Samuel  H.  Willard,  Harlem  ; 
Jos.  Moorhead,  Knox ;  Charles  H.  Woodbury,  Madison 
Square ;  Robert  Johnson,  First  Morrisania ;  Thos. 
Anderson,  New  York  ;  G.  C.  King,  North ;  Henry  Q. 
Hawley,  Park ;  James  E.  Ware,  Phillips ;  Geo.  C.  Lay, 
Puritans  ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  Riverdale  ;  Wm.  Onder- 
donk,  Rutgers,  R.  ;  Robert  Houston,  Scotch ;  James 
Anderson,  Seventh ;  Wm.  P.  Worrall,  Thirteenth  Street ; 
C.  E.  Garey,  Tremont;  Thomas  Bond,  University 
Place ;  Robert  Gentle,  Union  Tabernacle ;  Wm.  A. 
Wheelock,  Washington  Heights  ;  Robert  Jaffray,  West ; 
C.  P.  Leggett,  West  End ;  Richard  Drummond,  West- 
minster. 

476  After  the  calling  of  the  roll  Dr.  Briggs  presented  the 
following  exception : 

Inasmuch  as  the  Presbytery  gave  Dr.  Lampe  "  power 
to  incorporate  in  the  stenographer' s  minutes  the  argument 
in  printed  form  as  presented,  including  the  portion 
omitted  in  reading,"  I  beg  leave  to  take  exception  to 
that  part  of  the  proceedings  of  Presbytery  which  per- 
mitted Dr.  Lampe,  arguing  in  behalf  of  the  Prosecution, 
under  the  cloak  of  a  rebuttal,  to  introduce  new  evidence 
as  follows  : 

Alexander,  on  Isaiah  ;  Rawlinson,  in  Pulpit  Commen- 
tary ;  Ray,  Introduction  in  Bible  Commentary  ;  Manly' s 
Bible  Doctrine  of  Inspiration,  Hebraica,  October,  1888 ; 
Prof.  John  Kennedy,  A  Popular  Argument  for  the 
Unity  of  Isaiah,  1891 ;  Prof.  John  Forbes,  The  Servant  of 
the  Lord,  in  Isaiah  xl.,  lxvi.,  1890;  Rector  F.  Watson, 
The  Law  and  the  Prophets,  Hulsean  Lecture  for  1882 ; 
Prof.  Stanley,  Leathes,  The  Law  in  the  Prophets,  1891 ; 
Very  Rev.  R.  Payne  Smith,  The  Mosaic  Authorship  and 
Credibility    of     the    Pentateuch,    1869 ;     James    Sime, 


141 

F.  R.  S.  E.,  The  Kingdom  of  all  Israel,  1883 ;  Prof. 
Robert  Watts,  The  Newer  Criticism,  etc.,  1882  ;  Principal  477 
Rainy,  The  Bible  and  Criticism,  1878  ;  Bishop  A.  C. 
Hervey,  The  Books  of  Chronicles  in  Relation  to  the 
Pentateuch,  etc.,  1892 ;  Bishop  C.  J.  Ellicot,  Christus 
Comprobator,  1892;  Rev.  Henry  Hay  man,  D.  D.,  "Pro- 
phetic Testimony  to  the  Pentateuch,"  Bib.  Sac,  1892; 
Pastor,  Tr.  Roos,  Die  Geschichtlinckett  des  Pentatenchs, 
1883  ;  Adolph  Zahn,  Das  Deuteronomium,  1890  ;  Eduard 
Bohl,  Zum  Gassetz  und  Zum  Zengniss,  1883;  Pastor  G. 
Schumann,  Die  Wellhausenische  Pentateuchthe,  1892 ; 
R.  S.  Poole,  "Date  of  the  Pentateuch,  Theory  and 
Facts,"  Cont.  Review,  1887;  Conder,  "  Ancient  Men  and 
Modern  Critics,"  Cont.  Review,  1887;  Edersheim,  Pro- 
phecy and  History  in  Relation  to  the  Messiah,  Warburten 
Lectures,  1880-1884;  Waller,  "  Is  Genesis  a  Compilation  J " 
Theological  Monthly,  1891;  Pastor  Naumann,  "Das 
Erste  Buch  der  Bible,"  1890  ;  Prof.  William  H.  Green, 
Moses  and  the  Pentateuch  Vindicated ;  Prof.  E.  Cone 
Bissell,  The  Pentateuch ;  Vos,  Mosaic  Origin  of  the 
Pentateuch  Codes,  1886 ;  Stebbins,  A  Study  of  the 
Pentateuch,  1881 ;  S.  C.  Bartlett,  Sources  of  History  in 
the  Pentateuch,  Stone  Lectures,  1882  ;  Rabbi  I.  M.  Wise,  478 
Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ,  1891 ;  Lias,  "  Wellhausen  on  the 
Pentateuch,"  in  the  Theological  Review. 

At  the  request  of  the  Stated  Clerk  the  Rev.  Thomas  G. 
Wall  was  appointed  to  him  in  taking  the  vote. 

After  the  calling  of  the  roll  Dr.  Sutton  moved  that  the 
members  of  the  Faculty  and  the  Trustees  of  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  who  may  be  members  of  the  Court,  and 
the  Librarian  of  the  Seminary,  and  such  other  members 
who,  as  editors  and  publishers,  have  recorded  their  views 
on  this  case  before  this  Court  was  convened,  be  deemed 
incompetent  to  sit  and  vote  in  this  case  because  on  the 
ground  of  personal  interest  in  the  result. 

The  Moderator  decided  the  motion  to  be  out  of  order. 

Dr.  Sutton  appealed  from  the  decision.  The  Moderator 
was  sustained. 


142 

The  calling  of  the  roll  was  now  begun  for  an  expression 
of  the  members  of  the  Court,  under  the  three-minute  rule 
adopted  at  the  last  session. 

At  five  minutes  to  five  o'clock  it  was  resolved  to  take  a 
recess  until  to-morrow  at  2  p.  m. 

After  reading  and  approving  the  minutes  as  far  as 
written,  Presbytery  took  a  recess. 

Concluded  with  prayer. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 

New  York,  30th  December,  1892. 
Scotch  Church,  Friday,  Dec.  30,  2  p.  m. 

479  Presbytery  met  and  was  opened  with  prayer. 
Present :  Ministers — John  C.  Bliss,  Moderator  ;  George 

Alexander,  Samuel  D.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi, 
Anson  P.  Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Frederick 
G.  Beebe,  Robert  R.  Booth,  Samuel  Bowden,  Thomas  S. 
Bradner,  Francis  Brown,  Walter  D.  Buchanan,  James 
Chambers,  Edward  L.  Clark,  John  B.  Devins,  Ira  S.  Dodd, 
D.  Stuart  Dodge,  Conrad  Doench,  Wm.  Durant,  Thomas 
Douglas,  Howard  Duffield,  John  H.  Edwards,  Henry  B. 
Elliot,  Wm.  T.  Elsing,  Charles  P.  Fagnani,  Henry  M. 
Field,  Walter  B.  Floyd,  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford, 
Charles  R.  Gillett,  Henri  Grandlienard,  James  Hall,  A. 
Woodruff  Halsey,  Wm.  R.  Harshaw,  Thos.  S.  Hastings, 
Edward  W.  Hitchcock,  James  H.  Hoadley,  James  Hunter, 
Samuel  M.  Jackson,  A.  D.  L.  Jewett,  Joseph  R.  Kerr, 
Albert  B.  King,  Alexander  D.  King,  Theodore  Leonhard, 
Milton  S.  Littlefield,  John  C.  Lowrie,  Daniel  E.  Lorenz, 
Wm.  M.  Martin,  Charles  P.  Mallery,  Francis  H.  Marling, 
Henry  T.  McEwen,  James  H.  Mcllvaine,  Alexander  H. 
McKinney,  Alexander  McLean,  Duncan  J.  McMillan, 
Horace  G.  Miller,  Geo.  J.  Mingins,  Wm.  L.  Moore,  James 

480  C.  Nightingale,  Geo.  Nixon,  Israel  H.  Northrup,  Daniel 
H.  Overton,  Levi  H.  Parsons,  James  G.  Patterson, 
Edward  P.  Payson,  George  S.  Payson,  Vincent  Pisek, 
Hugh   Pritchard,  James  S.  Ramsay,  Daniel  Redmon, 


143 

Charles  S.  Robinson,  Stealy  B.  Rossiter,  Albert  G. 
Ruliffson,  Wm.  A.  Rice,  Joseph  Sanderson,  Joseph  A. 
Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  J.  Balcom  Shaw,  Geo.  L.  Shearer, 
Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton  M.  Smith,  William  C.  Stitt, 
Ch.  A.  Stoddard,  J.  Ford  Sutton,  Alex.  W.  Spronll,  Geo. 
L.  Spining,  Charles  L.  Thompson,  John  J.  Thompson, 
Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Henry  VanDyke,  Marvin  R.  Vincent, 
Frederick  E.  Voegelin,  Thomas  G.  Wall,  Abbott  L.  R. 
Waite,  W.  Scott  Watson,  Geo.  S.  Webster,  Erskine  N. 
White,  Livingston  Willard,  David  G.  Wylie. 

Elders — James  Tompkins,  Bethany  ;  Albert  R.  Ledoux, 
Brick ;  Alex.  P.  Ketcham,  Qalvary ;  Wm.  Mickens,  Cen- 
tral ;  Andrew  Robinson,  Christ ;  James  McDowell,  East 
Harlem ;  H.  Edwards  Rowland,  Fifth  Avenue ;  Eugene 
Mc Jimpsey,  First ;  John  Mc William,  Fourth  ;  Geo.  E. 
Sterry,  Fourth  Avenue  ;  Saml.  Reeve,  Fourteenth  Street ;  481 
Saml.  H.  Willard,  Harlem  ;  Joseph  Moorhead,  Knox ; 
Charles  H.  Woodbury,  Madison  Square  ;  Robert  Johnson, 
First  Morrisania ;  Thos.  Anderson,  New  York ;  G.  C. 
King,  North  ;  Henry  Q.  Hawley,  Park ;  James  E.  Ware, 
Phillips  ;  Geo.  C.  Lay,  Puritans ;  Cleveland  H.  Dodge, 
Riverdale  ;  Wm.  M.  Onderdonk,  Rutgers,  R. ;  Robert 
Houston,  Scotch ;  James  Anderson,  Seventh ;  Wm.  R. 
Worrall,  Thirteenth  Street ;  C.  E.  Garey,  Tremont ; 
Thomas  Bond,  University  Place ;  Robert  Gentle,  Union 
Tabernacle ;  Wm.  A.  Wheelock,  Washington  Heights ; 
Robert  Jaffray,  West ;  C.  P.  Leggett,  West  End  ;  Richd. 
Drummond,  Westminster. 

The  roll  was  now  taken  up  where  it  was  left  at  the  482 
close  of  the  last  meeting,  and  the  expression  of  the  opin- 
ions of  the  members  under  the  rule  was  concluded. 

Whereupon  the  Court  proceeded  to  take  the  vote  under 
the  rule  adopted. 

A  few  moments  before  five  o'clock  it  was  resolved  that  433 
the  session  be  prolonged  until  the  vote  was  completed. 

After  which  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Geo.  Alexander  and 
Henry  Van  Dyke,  with  Elder  Robert  Jaffray,  were  ap- 
pointed a  committee  to  bring  in  the  result  of  the  vote, 
and  the  judgment  of  the  judicatory. 


144 

The  final  vote  by  ayes  and  noes  on  page  485. 

The  following  resolution  was  adopted  : 

Resolved,  that  the  members  of  this  Court  desire  to  place 
on  record  its  high  appreciation  of  the  fidelity  and  ability 
with  which  the  Moderator,  the  Rev.  John  C.  Bliss,  D.  D., 
has  presided  over  its  deliberations  in  the  judicial  case 
now  brought  to  a  close.  His  helpful  and  uplifting  pray- 
ers, his  impartial  rulings,  and  the  calm  Christian  spirit 
maintained  by  him  at  all  times,  have  been  invaluable  in 
aiding  to  preserve  the  fitting  attitude  of  the  Court  to 
secure  a  dispassionate  decision. 

The  Court  also  thanks  the  Committee  of  Arrangements 
and  the  authorities  of  the  Scotch  Church  for  the  excellent 
facilities  afforded  for  the  trial. 
484      The  Moderator  made  an  appropriate  reply. 

The  resolution  in  reference  to  those  who  should  vote 
"not  sustain,"  and  which  was  laid  on  the  table  until  the 
vote  should  be  taken,  was  now  taken  up  and  referred  to 
the  Committee  appointed  to  bring  in  the  vote  and  judg- 
ment of  the  Court. 

It  was  resolved  that  when  we  take  a  recess  we  do  so  to 
meet  in  this  house  on  Monday,  January  9th,  at  2  p.  m. 

After  reading  and  approving  the  minutes  as  far  as 
written,  Presbytery  took  a  recess. 

Concluded  with  prayer. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 


145 


jj 

»H 

rH          r-t 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

p 

O 

i— 1 

rH          tH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

s> 

| 

1 

o 

« 

rH 

iH         rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

-«$ 

r-1 

rH         rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

p. 

rH 

■ 

£ 

I 

60 

B 
■ 

M 

rH 

rH         rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

-4 

i-H 

rH        rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

P. 

rH 

rH         rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

00 

H 

■ 

o 

b 

tH 

rH         rH 

i— 1 

rH 

rH 

rH 

M 

iH 

rH         rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

i—l 

<! 

T-H 

rH          rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

p. 

a 

r-t 

iH 

rH          rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

H 

I 
B 

OS 

£ 

5 

rH 

rH          rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

r-l 

rH          rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

p. 

rH 

rH          rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

CO 

ft 

03 

1 

« 

r-( 

rH         rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

<{ 

iH 

rH         rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rA 

o 

Pi 

rH 

rH         rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

■ 

Pi 

00 

-»3 

-** 

•         •*» 

■+» 

'.         ■+■» 

— 

.              -+3 

OS 

.         QQ 

.         <& 

■           OB 

03 

03 

.           °3 

0 

•         § 

:     is 

3 

:     ^ 

J3 

9 

SB 

j     « 

03 

°s 

■ 

03 

4B 

«        - 

2      * 

£       -3 

on       -t?   a 

-tJ 

03           Hf     03 

o 

3        O 

1          r5 

1     vS  § 

Z2       JZJQC 

5 

Szji 

3          ©    3 

oi 

1 

H 

09 

i-i 

c 
a 

(5 

c 

1 

fn 

► 

r-} 

a 

a 

c 

1 

«1 

^ 

d 

a 

03 

4 

i 

■ 

1 

i 

a 
1 

of 

►< 

1 

< 

| 

0           1 

1 

a 

E 
■ 

i 

rS 
1 

3| 

3 

3 

3 

3 

03 

(3 

146 


00 


»  « 


I rf 

ft  m 


»  « 


1 

Km 


1 
g 

03      , 

*"! 


■ 
Km 


-*3 

00 

pf 
Km 


09 

g 

JZJCQ 


-♦a  " 
OQ 

g  : 

no  . 


-(J 

CD 

ol 
Km 


m 


u 
<o 

a 

c3 

PQ 


o 

a 

i 

o 

5-1 

m 


d 

a3 
PI 

PQ 


c3 


a 

03 

5 


03 

5 


PQ 
hi 


PI 

<D 
ft 


DO 


T3 

O 
A 


147 


I    M 

1     T 

LA 

s 

I  2 
1  ? 

p. 

00 

I     « 

LA 
|  - 

3    — r 

O      ** 

I  ri 

«s     — r 
o     ^ 

3?     <M 


00       . 


so 

00      . 

►2  1 


00 

►2  5 


►2  3 


O    3 


►2  i 


c9 


tic 


1 

o 


£ 


g 

P 


w 

ft 


W 


o 


Sp   « 


148 


a 


§>  «* 


i  * 

s?  « 

oj      — 7- 


■£•     <N 


tH  iH 


£"     H 


9  n 


«-t  tH 


oa 
3 
00      . 


B 
■ 

■81 

JZiCQ 


1 

5 


OQ 

to     . 

£  1 


09 

E3 

■si 


1 

OQ     . 


o  ^ 


be 

a 

•iH 

os 

3 


Ph 


fe 


pq 


Q 

f<5 

c 

'3 

K 

£ 

1-; 

of 

w 

03 

a 

bo 

03 

2" 

| 

fa 

O 

G 

O 

N 

£ 

E 

£ 

N 

» 


i  m 


R 


n 


CO 

IS 


2>   PQ 


149 


Pi 
CQ 

■s  » 


CD 
DO       . 

is  "3 


CQ 
g 
CQ 

Km 


-+3 

CQ 
CQ 


CQ 
CQ 

O    3 


g 

CQ 

►2  1 


3 


§ 


€ 


a 


c3 

w 


£ 


© 

CQ 

W 


If 

c3 

CQ 

5h 
c3 

w 


CO 
H 

of 

a 

CQ 
03 

w 


£ 

E 


o 
o 

I 

a 


w 


o3 
O 

w 


150 


s?  n 


O  T-t 


»  n 


»    M 


i>   M 


0Q 


■a 

1  *1  ttl 


J  3 


£   S 


B 

3 


►S  5 

JZJQQ 


OS 

0 

Hi 

si 


03 

■ 

£  s 


1 

W 


dd 

o 

OS 

© 


ft 


CD 
I 


« 


o 

© 


t 

1 

3 


a 
M 


o 


o 


151 


M 


J    «_ 


a 


P   M 


pq 


3 
g 

OQ 

Km 


m 

II 

Km 


4* 
OQ 

OQ 

£    I 

£02 


"5 

OQ 

Km 


►2  i 


Km 


m 


o 


9 

1 

Hi 


1^ 


o 


- 

03 


w 

be 


W 


S         S 


p 


152 


PQ 


P5 


n 


►2  1 


B 

►2  5 


02 

i 

£  i 


00 

►2  i 


1 

CO 

SZJQQ 


OQ 
OQ 

►2  a 


y 

CD 


a     s 


w 


CD 
CD 


<D 
O 

o 


153 


s?  « 


a 


PQ 


S?   « 


s>  n 


4 


55GO       55GQ 


a 
■ 

►5  1 

55  5Q 


1 

I  . 

£  § 

55  OQ 


CO 

1 

£  1 

55  GQ 


4! 

3 

55  CQ 


00 


o 


r2 

Is 
bo 

•  IH 

bo 


rt      w 


o 
J 

a" 

o 

M 

•i-i 

55 


3 


o 
55 


o 

<D 

> 

o 


- 


^ 


o 


a 
o 

CD 

u 

3 

03 


Ph 

pr 

o 

03 


154 


J  7 


O         rH 


s?  «_ 

J  -J 


O         rH 


« 


»  « 


B    « 


g 


■ 

OQ 

■8*5 

52;  cc 


1 

SQ 

►2  3 

JZJQQ 


OQ 

1 


J  a 


O    3 

£02 


O    3 

02 


fe 


OQ 
o 

f 


OQ 


■a 


o 


OQ 


o 


155 


M 


I    « 


pq 


n  n 


g>   B 


53 
■ 

53  cc 


Si 

53  gq 


CO 

3 

53  GQ 


i 

53  02 


g 

►S  1 

53  GO 


OS 

53  GQ 


■ 
3 

sH 

53  GQ 


8 


o 
o 

g 

a> 

a 
gq 


< 


S 

oS 
GQ 


03 
1 

gq 


gq 


o 
© 

<D 

Jh 

03 
O 

02 


156 


BO      CQ 

I  < 

d 

*      — 7" 
J      j 

i 

11 

OP 

|     j 

j  ; 

i  ^ 

I  n 

|     < 

ft     C3 


B 

B 

02 


03 

£  5 


w 

B 

JZJQQ 


49 

■ 

I 

02 


02 

3 

■ 


■ 
02 

&0Q 


I— H 

•l-l 

M 

m 


OQ 


0G 


o 

h 

T? 

►-a 

<j 

E 

o 

| 

n3 

-*a 

o 

4> 

E 

-t-3 

d 

Q* 

02 

m 

m 

Hi 

bB 

a 

•a 


157 


w  m 


M 


j   * 

m   pq 


tH  iH         t^  i-t 


-*» 

•aa 

-»a 

OQ 

■ 

OQ 

OQ 

S3 

3 

S 

2 

m    .* 

OB 

m    j 

ss 

£  1 


II 


.        -*-> 

•* 

' 

00 

OQ 

:     a 

eI    • 

GQ 

i 

■ 

JZJOQ 


►S  5 


Hi 

rf 


§ 

OQ 

a 

o 


W 

03 

I 


W 

I 


H 

a 
bo 

O 


158 


£ 

6 

rH 

?H 

rH 

rH 

i—t 

p. 

CO 

i—l 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

s> 

IS 

1 

a 
B 

«' 

o 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

<i 

o 

T- 1 

rH 

rH 

r-i 

p. 

CO 

o 

rH 

rH 

r-i 

r-i 

& 

0) 

B 

1 
O 

« 

r-i 

rH 

rH 

r-i 

rH 

«i 

r-i 

rl 

rH 

r-i 

rH 

P< 

CO 

tH 

rH 

rH 

I-" 

rH 

a 

■ 
1 

j 

d 

r-1 

rH 

T— I 

rH 

rH 

w 

rH 

rH 

rH 

1-H 

rH 

-J 

»H 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

IB 

tH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

H 

B 

4 

O 

ffl* 

r-i 

r-i 

r-l 

rH 

rH 

«i 

rH 

r-i 

r-i 

rH 

r-i 

so 

<N 

iH 

rH 

T-i 

r-i 

r-i 

CO 

i-l 

t— 1 

rH 

rH 

r-i 

r-i 

M 

■ 

1 

tt 

r-i 

i— ( 

rH 

r-i 

rH                rH 

-n" 

»H 

rH 

r-i 

r-i 

rH                rH 

CO 

<N 

rH 

rH 

r-i 

rH 

r-i              r-i 

tH 

iH 

rH 

rH 

r-i 

r-i                r-i 

■ 
GO 

O     I- 

•ft  § 

■ 
03 

■S  1 

►2  1 

-*3 

GO 

S3 

OS 

►s  a 

-»3 

00 

B 

00       , 

►2  i 

CO 

J 

I 


a5 


S3 

a 


0 

of 


159 


pq 


PQ 


S 


ff  « 


-*3 

-e 

49 

•M 

-»a 

-♦-> 

-*a   I 

co 

■ 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

0°   . 

s 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

B  ; 

00 

■ 

CO 

CO 

DO 

CD 

55  GQ 


£  1 


55  cc 


55  ui 


►3  5 


.a 
a 


r 


« 


- 

CD 


H 

O 

cu 


P4 


a 

I 

CD 


a 

a 

CD 


I 

CD 

o 


4 

o 


O 


1-5 

s=f 

CD 

i 

o 

ft 

I 


a 

CD 
e3 

w 


H3 

I 

w 

C3 
O 


CD 
CD 

<1 


i^-^-s*' 


?v 


0? 


160 


£ 

i 

iH 

O 

tH 

r-l 

tH 

rH 

rH 

p. 

00 

rH 

o 

lH 

i-H 

iH 

tH 

rH 

> 

rH 

o 

rH 

rH 

iH 

i— 1 

t— ( 

g     •« 

iH 

o 

tH 

iH 

iH 

»H 

rH 

00 

iH 

o 

i— 1 

tH 

»H 

iH 

rH 

fc 

a.- 

1  «i 

00 

a 

<D     d 

S    cq 

6          < 

8  * 

rH 

tH 

iH 

iH 

iH 

iH 

rH 

M 

<L» 

I  « 

1  -i 

tH 

tH 

iH 

iH 

rH 

tH 

I-H 

&  « 

t-I 

tH 

i—l 

iH 

i-i 

tH 

rH 

00 

tH 

rH 

iH 

tH 

iH 

tH 

r-t 

M 

§  -* 

00 

-e 

HJ9 

H-3 

-*3 

-+J 

■+»      ', 

■*»    ! 

CQ 

00 

■ 

CQ 

CQ 

CQ      . 

to     . 

3 

1 

3 

9 

■ 

S  : 

3 

00 

00       j 

co 

CQ 

CQ 

■^ 

£  3 


■g  »       if  00 


3 


Km 


d 

a> 


OQ 


O    H 


&02 


w 

l-H 

s 

a 

OS 

m 

03 


rS    ^ 


« 

o 
t? 

c3 

-a 

o 

o 


£  5 


w 


i 

o 
o 


£     s     £ 


a 

o 

cS 

w 


H 
O 


02 

(h 

O 
OS 

I 


161 


B   « 


e  n 


« 


2>   pq 


*>  m 


a 
►S  1 


H 
3 

►5  i 


■g    CO  -£    OQ 


03 
03 


■i. 
o 

EH 

pf 
o 


n3 

5 


» 
& 


o 

w 

d 

£ 

0) 

be 

* 

03 

W 

w 

s 


o 


£ 


o 

d 

a> 

o 

c? 

h3 


w 

d 

<B 
SO 

o 

ft 


o 


O 


a3 


& 


^3 


a 

Pm 


IS 


« 


162 


g>   PQ 


n 


ff  IT 


O         rH 


O         iH 


g>  m 


sp  « 


\  : 

■ii     • 

-^        . 

•M 

-|j 

-*3 

-l-> 

00     . 

so     . 

S 

00 

CO 

00 

00       . 

3      , 

0 

pi 

a 

a 

2   : 

DO       J 

5     . 

02 

OQ 

OQ 

OQ 

00     . 

■**  oq     -e^ 


55  OQ 


55  m 


-g     00  "g     00 


55  oq 


55  OQ 


55  OQ 


SI 


O     H 

55  GQ 


W 

a 
o 

© 

o 


^3 

o 

00 

O 

w 


eg 
1-5 

O 
OQ 

U 
<D 

(=1 
■5 


« 


O 


o* 

IT 

c3 


o 

o 
PQ 


^2 
O 

M 


O 


too 
Ph 


O 

o 


1        B 

£       3 


o 

a 


Ph 


P 


s3 

H 

a 

o 

•a 
p 


163 


.d 

tH 

rH 

i—i 

-H 

£ 

o 

St 

00 

r-t 

rH 

rH 

rH 

1  « 

r-H 

rH 

rH 

rH 

> 

&    -4 

rH 

rH 

r-t 

rH 

A 

tH 

rH 

r-t 

<-H 

00 

M 

Charge 

A.IB. 

iH 

rH 

rn 

r-t 

r-t 

rH 

rH 

T-t 

rH 

r-t 

rH 

l~t 

02 

a 

.   o 

iH 

r-t 

i— i 

r-t 

.a 

tH 

r-t 

r-i 

r-t 

?    < 

i-t 

r-t 

y-t 

r-t 

P.      rH 
00 

r-t 

r-t 

r-t 

r-t 

M 
M 

|      « 

1— 1 

r-t 

T-t 

r-t 

i  ■< 

rH 

r-t 

T-t 

r-t 

tH 

rH 

I— 1 

T-t 

m 

P.    t-t 
oo 

i— 1 

r-t 

rH 

r-t 

M 

§  « 

r-i 

r-t 

I-H 

r-t 

1  ^ 

r-t 

r-t 

rH 

r-t 

T-t 

r-t 

T-t 

r-t 

03 

ft      i-H 

l-H 

rH 

r-t 

r-t 

-e 

H9 

■+s 

-~-      . 

09 

03 

OB 

00       . 

p 

P 

3 

P 

00 

OS 

<JQ 

oo     . 

-S"S 

•£ 

*S          j_3  43 

£  E 

o 

P       ^5  E 

O    ;h 

^K 

fci 

Z2     £la: 

JZJQQ 

<«j 

; 

3 

r* 
6 

o 

I— 1 

c 

PC 

> 

Ph 

. 

Ph 

'■S 
a 
o 

a 

■ 

■ 

be 

a 

ll 

a> 

2 

r^ 

rt 

r-3 

p 

J 

• 

u 

1 

T3 

H9 
SO 

w 

a 

.a 
a 

4 

DC 

■ 

OS 

a 

a 

CD 

9 

► 

* 

£ 

* 

164 
New  York,  9th  January,  1893. 

494  Lecture  Room,  Scotch  Church,  2  p.m. 

Presbytery  met  after  recess,  and  was  opened  with 
prayer. 

Present :  Ministers — J.  C.  Bliss,  Moderator,  Geo.  Alex- 
ander, Samuel  D.  Alexander,  Antonio  Arreghi,  Anson  P. 
Atterbury,  W.  Wallace  Atterbury,  Frederick  G.  Beebe, 
Robert  R.  Booth,  Samuel  Bowden,  Thomas  S.  Bradner, 
Francis  Brown,  Walter  B.  Buchanan,  James  Chambers, 
Edward  L.  Clark,  John  B.  Devins,  Ira  S.  Dodd,  D.  S. 
Dodge,  Conrad  Doench,  Wm.  Durant,  Thos.  Douglas, 
Howard  Duffield,  John  H.  Edwards,  Henry  B.  Elliot, 
Wm.  T.  Elsing,  Ch.  P.  Fagnani,  Henry  M.  Field,  Walter 
B.  Floyd,  Jesse  F.  Forbes,  Herbert  Ford,  Charles  R. 
Gillett,  Henri  Grandlienard,  James  Hall,  Wm.  R.  Har- 
shaw,  Thomas  S.  Hastings,  Ed.  W.  Hitchcock,  James  H. 
Hoadley,  James  Hunter,  Samuel  M.  Jackson,  A.  D.  L. 
Jewett,  Joseph  R.  Kerr,  Albert  B.  King,  A.  Dunlop  King, 
Theodore  Leonhard,  Milton  S.  Littlefield,  John  C.  Lowrie, 
Daniel  E.  Lorenz,  Wm.  M.  Martin,  Ch.  P.  Mallery, 
Francis  H.  Marling,  Henry  T.  McEwen,  James  H.  Mcll- 
vaine,  Alex.  H.  McKinney,  Alex.  McLean,  Duncan  J.  Mc- 
Millan, Horace  G.  Miller,  Geo.  J.  Mingins,  W.  L.  Moore, 
James  C.  Nightingale,  Geo.  Nixon,  Israel  H.  Northrup, 

495  D.  H.  Overton,  Levi  H.  Parsons,  James  G.  Patterson,  Ed. 
P.  Payson,  Daniel  Redmon,  Ch.  S.  Robinson,  Stealy  B. 
Rossiter,  Wm.  A.  Rice,  Albert  G.  Ruliffson,  Joseph 
Sanderson,  Jos.  A.  Saxton,  Philip  Schaff,  Geo.  L.  Shearer, 
Andrew  Shiland,  Wilton  M.  Smith,  Ch.  A.  Stoddard, 
J.  Ford  Sutton,  Alex.  W.  Sproull,  Geo.  L.  Spining,  John 
J.  Thompson,  Henry  M.  Tyndall,  Henry  Van  Dyke, 
Fred.  E.  Voegelin,  Thomas  G.  Wall,  Geo.  S.  Webster, 
Erskine  N.  White,  David  G.  Wylie. 

Elders — James  Tompkins,  Albert  R.  Ledoux,  A.  P. 
Ketcham,  Wm.  Mickens,  Andr.  Robinson,  James  McDow- 
ell, John  Mc William,  G.  E.  Sterry,  Saml.  Reeve,  Saml. 
H.  Willard,  Jos.  Moorhead,  Charles  H.  Woodbury,  Rob- 


165 

ert  Johnson,  Thomas  Anderson,  Henry  Q.  Hawley,  James 
E.  Ware,  Geo.  C.  Lay,  Cleveland  H.  Dodge,  Robert 
Houston,  James  Anderson,  Wm.  R.  Worrall,  C.  E.  Garey, 
Thomas  Bond,  Robert  Gentle,  Wm.  A.  Wheelock,  Rob- 
ert Jaffray,  C.  P.  Leggett. 

After  the  roll  call  was  completed  the  following  protest  49c 
was  presented : 

PROTEST. 

The  undersigned  hereby  presents  for  record  his  protest 
against  the  action  of  the  Moderator,  on  the  30th  day  of 
December,  1892,  in  "The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.  D.,"  as  follows  : 

Whereas,  our  Revised  Book  of  Discipline,  Chapter  4, 
Section  28,  states  that  "No  member  of  a  judicatory,  who 
has  not  been  present  during  the  whole  of  the  trial,  shall 
be  allowed  to  vote  on  any  question  arising  therein,  except 
by  unanimous  consent  of  the  judicatory," 

And  whereas,  Rev.  Geo.  J.  Mingins,  having  been  ab- 
sent during  six  days  of  aforesaid  trial,  and  not  having 
been  excused,  by  "  unanimous  consent  of  the  judicatory," 
for  three  of  those  days  ; 

And  whereas,  Rev.  Edward  P.  Payson  objects  to  the 
said  absentee  being  allowed  to  vote  on  the  final  issue  of 
the  case  ;  the  Moderator,  nevertheless,  ruled  that  his  vote 
should  be  admitted,  contrary  to  the  rules  of  the  Church 
and  the  interests  of  justice  ;  therefore,  against  this  action 
of  the  Moderator,  the  undersigned  respectfully  enters  his  497 
protest,  which  protest  is  emphasized  by  the  following 
considerations,  viz. : 

(1)  The  gravity  of  this  protest  is  increased  by  the  fact 
that  the  protestant  had  on  two  previous  occasions  (Dec. 
5th  and  Dec.  21st)  objected  to  the  vote  of  Mr.  Mingins, 
on  account  of  absence  from  the  trial,  but  his  first  objec- 
tion had  been  quietly  ignored,  and  his  second  thwarted 
by  the  Moderator. 

(2)  The  gravity  of  this  protest  is  further  increased  by 
the  fact,  that  during  the  protestant' s  statement  of  his 


166 

objection  and  the  reasons  therefor,  on  Dec.  30th  the  Mod- 
erator allowed  strong  and  continuous  hissing  by  the  op- 
position, without  a  word  or  sign  of  remonstrance  on  his 
part ;  all  of  which  tended  to  the  detriment  of  justice  and 
the  deep  disgrace  of  the  judicatory. 

(3)  The  gravity  of  this  protest  is  still  further  increased 
by  the  fact,  that  by  his  ruling  the  Moderator  persistently 
retained  his  seat  in  the  Court  for  Mr.  Mingins,  although 
absent  from  the  trial  during  six  days,  four  of  which 
were  spent  in  lecture  tours,  while  he  promptly  unseated 
Rev.  Dr.  W.  G.  T.  Shedd  for  but  four  days'  absence  from 
the  trial,  and  that  on  account  of  illness,  for  each  and  all 

498  of  which  reasons,  the  undersigned  hereby  respectfully 
presents  for  record  his  emphatic  protest,  as  above  stated. 

(Signed)        Edward  P.  Payson. 

The  Rev.  Messrs.  John  H.  Edwards  and  James  C. 
Nightingale  were  appointed  to  bring  in  an  answer  to  the 
protest. 

They  subsequently  reported  the  following  : 

Your  Committee  deem  it  sufficient  to  state  that  the 
absence  of  Rev.  Mr.  Mingins  was  excused  by  the  Court, 
and  his  name  kept  accordingly  upon  the  roll.  The  Rev. 
Dr.  Shedd  and  others  lost  their  membership  in  the  Court 
and  their  places  upon  the  roll,  under  the  rules  adopted 
by  the  Court.  (1)  "That  the  excuse  of  absence  shall 
relate  to  a  positive  and  important  duty ;  (2)  That  it 
shall  not  involve  absence  during  two  consecutive  sessions." 

In  the  judgment  of  your  Committee  the  Court  is  satis- 
fied with  the  conduct  of  the  Moderator  in  the  matter 
referred  to  by  the  protestant. 

(Signed)        John  H.  Edwards. 

James  C.  Nightingale. 

499  The  Committee  appointed  to  bring  in  the  result  of  the 
vote  and  the  judgment  of  the  judicatory,  presented  the 
following  report.    The  report  was  accepted. 

The  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of    America  against   the    Reverend    Charles  A. 


167 

Briggs,  D.  D.,  having  been  dismissed  by  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  on  November  4,  1891,  was  remanded  by 
the  General  Assembly  of  1892  to  the  same  Presbytery 
with  instruction  that  "it  be  brought  to  issue  and  tried 
on  the  merits  thereof  as  speedily  as  possible.' ' 

In  obedience  to  this  mandate  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  has  tried  the  case.  It  has  listened  to  the  evidence 
and  argument  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  acting  in 
fidelity  to  the  duty  committed  to  them.  It  has  heard  the 
defense  and  evidence  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D., 
presented  in  accordance  with  the  rights  secured  to  every 
minister  of  the  Church. 

The  Presbytery  has  kept  in  mind  these  established 
principles  of  our  polity,  "That  no  man  can  rightly  be 
convicted  of  heresy  by  inference  or  implication,"  that  in  600 
the  interpretation  of  ambiguous  expression  "candor  re- 
quires that  a  Court  should  favor  the  accused  by  putting 
upon  his  words  the  more  favorable  rather  than  the  less 
favorable  construction,"  and  that  "  there  are  truths  and 
forms  with  respect  to  which  men  of  good  character  may 
differ."  Giving  due  consideration  to  the  defendant's  ex- 
planations of  the  language  used  in  his  Inaugural  Ad- 
dress, accepting  his  frank  and  full  disclaimer  of  the 
interpretation  which  has  been  put  upon  some  of  its 
phrases  and  illustrations,  crediting  his  affirmations  of 
loyalty  to  the  Standards  of  the  Church  and  to  the  Holy 
Scriptures  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice, the  Presbytery  does  not  find  that  he  has  transgressed 
the  limits  of  liberty  allowed  under  our  Constitution  to 
scholarship  and  opinion. 

Therefore,  without  expressing  approval  of  the  critical 
or  theological  views  embodied  in  the  Inaugural  Address, 
or  the  manner  in  which  they  have  been  expressed  and 
illustrated,  the  Presbytery  pronounces  the  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  I).  D.,  fully  acquitted  of  the  offences  alleged  501 
against  him,  the  several  Charges  and  Specifications 
accepted  for  probation  having  been  "not  sustained"  by 
the  following  vote : 


168 


I A 


II. 


III. 


1  Specification, 
2 

Charge    j£ 

1  Specification 
2 

Charge    jg 

Specification, 

la 

Charge    <  b 

c 


{Specification, 
Charge    jf 

{Specification, 
Charge    || 

ttt  j  Specification, 
V1*|  Charge,    .     . 


SUSTAINED. 


M 


41 
42 

42 
42 

39 
39 
39 
39 

44 
44 
42 
44 

39 
39 
39 

35 
35 
35 

41 

41 


17 
17 
17 
17 

16 
16 
16 
16 

17 

17 
17 
17 

15 
15 
15 

14 
14 
14 

16 
16 


58 
59 
59 
59 

55 
55 
55 
55 

61 
61 
59 
61 

54 
54 
54 

49 
49 
49 

57 
57 


NOT 
SUSTAINED. 


55 
54 
54 
54 

56 
56 
56 
56 

52 
52 
54 
52 

55 
55 
55 

57 

57 
57 

55 
55 


15 
15 
15 
15 

16 
16 
16 
16 

15 
15 
15 
15 

17 
17 
17 

16 
16 
16 

14 
14 


70 
69 
69 
69 

72 

72 
72 
72 

67 
67 
69 
67 

72 

72 
72 

73 
73 
73 


69 


Accordingly  the  Presbytery,  making  full  recognition 
of  the  ability,  sincerity  and  patience  with  which  the  Com- 
mittee of  Prosecution  have  performed  the  onerous  duty 
assigned  them,  does  now,  to  the  extent  of  its  Constitutional 
power,  relieve  said  Committee  from  further  responsibility 
in  connection  with  this  case.  In  so  doing  the  Presbytery 
is  not  undertaking  to  decide  how  far  that  Committee  is 
subject  to  the  authority  of  the  body  appointing  it,  but 
intends  by  this  action  to  express  an  earnest  conviction 
that  the  grave  issues  involved  in  this  case  will  be  more 


169 

wisely  and  justly  determined  by  calm  investigation  and 
fraternal  discussion  than  by  judicial  arraignment  and 
process. 

In  view  of  the  present  disquietude  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  of  the  obligation  resting  upon  all  Christians 
to  walk  in  charity  and  to  have  tender  concern  for  the 
consciences  of  their  brethren,  the  Presbytery  earnestly 
counsels  its  members  to  avoid,  on  the  one  hand,  hasty  or 
over- confident  statement  of  private  opinion  on  points  con- 
cerning which  profound  and  reverent  students  of  God's 
word  are  not  yet  agreed,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  suspi- 
cions and  charges  of  false  teaching  which  are  not  clearly 
capable  of  proof. 

Moreover,  the  Presbytery  advises  and  exhorts  all  sub-  504 
ject  to  its  authority  to  regard  the  many  and  great  things 
in  which  we  agree  rather  than  the  few  and  minor  things 
in  which  we  differ,  and  turning  from  the  paths  of  contro- 
versy, to  devote  their  energies  to  the  great  and  urgent 
work  of  the  Church,  which  is  the  proclamation  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  edifying  of  the  Body  of  Christ. 

(Signed)    George  Alexander, 
Henry  Van  Dyke, 
Robert  Jaffray. 

After  discussion  Presbytery  took  an  intermission  of 
fifteen  minutes,  at  3  p.  m. 

During  this  interval  Presbytery  met  in  regular  session. 

It  was  resolved  that  40  per  cent,  be  added  to  the  annual  505 
assessment  of  the  churches,  to  meet  the  extraordinary 
expenses  incurred  in  the  trial  of  Dr.  Briggs. 

At  3.15  Presbytery  resumed  its  sitting  in  a  judicial 
capacity. 

Presbytery  now  continued  the  discussion  of  the  report 
begun  before  the  intermission ;  after  which  a  motion  to 
lay  the  second  part  of  the  report  on  the  table  was  lost  by 
a  vote  of  47  to  58.  The  report  was  then  adopted  in  its 
several  parts,  and  then  it  was  adopted  as  a  whole  by  a 
majority  vote,  and  the  Moderator  declared  that  this  be 


170 

the  judgment  of  the  Court,   and    that    it   be   entered 
accordingly. 

506  The  thanks  of  the  body  was  extended  to  the  Committee 
having  in  charge  the  supervision  of  the  stenographer's 
report. 

On  motion,  Presbytery  now  sat  with  open  doors,  when 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  presented  the  following  ex- 
ception : 

As  the  Prosecuting  Committee  find  many  omissions 
from,  additions  to,  and  mistakes  and  errors,  in  the  copy 
of  the  stenographic  report  of  the  judicial  proceedings  in 
this  case,  as  furnished  by  the  stenographer,  and  as  the 
Prosecuting  Committee  has  not  had  access  to  the  so-called 
official  stenographic  report  as  corrected  and  amended  by 
the  Committee  of  which  the  Moderator  is  Chairman,  nor 
opportunity  to  compare  the  copy  furnished  to  them  by 
the  stenographer  with  the  so-called  official  stenographic 

607  report,  the  Prosecuting  Committee  therefore  excepts  and 
asks  to  have  entered  upon  the  record  its  exception  to  the 
so-called  official  stenographic  report  being  considered  or 
accepted  as  a  part  of  the  record  in  this  case,  or  as  an 
accurate,  full  and  complete  stenographic  report  of  the 
proceedings  in  this  case  before  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  which  would  entitle  it  to  be  used  upon  the  hearing 
of  the  appeal  in  this  case  in  a  higher  Court. 

The  following  persons  presented  their  respectful  dissent 
from  the  action  of  the  Court  on  the  first  part  of  the  Com- 
mittee's report,  viz.  : 

William  R.  Worrall,  Saml.  Bowden,  Edward  P.  Pay- 
son,  George  Nixon,  Andrew  Shiland,  Abbott  L.  R. 
Waite,  Levi  H.  Parsons,  Alex.  W.  Sproull,  James  C. 
Nightingale. 

The  Moderator  then  read  the  judgment  of  the  Court, 
whereupon  the  Prosecuting  Committee  presented  the  fol- 
lowing exception : 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  excepts  and  asks  to  have 
entered  upon  the  record  its  exception  to  the  final  judg- 
ment in  this  case  as  now  read,  and  to  each  and  every  part 
thereof. 


171 

After  reading  and  approving  the  minutes  tlie  Court 
adjourned.  508 

Concluded  with  prayer  and  the  Apostolical  benediction. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 


Presbytery  of  New  York, 

153  East  78th  Street,  New  York. 

May  8th,  1893. 

I  have  examined  the  above  print,  pages  37  (page  43 
of  this  volume)  to  165  (page  171  of  this  volume),  inclusive, 
being  a  copy  of  all  of  the  proceedings  had  in  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  York  in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America  versus  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  from  the  13th  day  of  June,  1892,  when 
the  mandate  of  the  General  Assembly  in  said  case  was 
received  by  the  said  Presbytery,  up  to  and  including 
the  9th  day  of  January,  1893,  when  the  final  judgment 
in  said  case  was  entered,  as  recorded  in  Volume  14  of 
the  Records  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  and  I  hereby 
authenticate  the  same  as  in  entire  agreement  with  the 
records  of  this  Presbytery. 

S.  D.  Alexander, 

Stated  Clerk. 


172 


V. 


Appellant's  Opening  Argument  in  favor  of  the 
Entertainment  of  the  Appeal,  presented  by  the 
Rev.  George  W.  F.  Birch,  D.  D.,  Chairman  of 
the  Prosecuting  Committee. 


Mr.  Moderator,  Fathers  and  Brethren. 

Your  Appellant  is  that  original  party  which  was,  in 
accordance  with  Section  1 1  of  the  Book  of  Discipline 
and  Section  V.  of  Chapter  XII.  of  the  Form  of  Govern- 
ment, declared  by  this  Supreme  Judicatory,  at  its  meeting 
in  1892,  to  be  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  in  the  case 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.* 

It  is  proposed  in  opening  this  case,  for  the  sake  of 
saving  the  time  of  the  Court,  and  because  of  the  legal, 
moral  and  ecclesiastical  status,  which  the  Appeal  read 
in  the  hearing  of  the  Assembly  gives  your  Appellant, 
to  present  a  brief  abstract  of  the  argument  prepared  by 
the  speaker  to  be  used  on  the  present  occasion. 

The  past  history  of  this  case  deepens  my  impression 
of  the  truth  uttered  by  the  speaker  at  the  last  Assembly, 

*  Minutes,  General  Assembly,  1892,  pages  90  and  119. 


173 

that  the  members  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution 
"appear  before  you  for  the  reason  that  impelled  Paul  and 
Barnabas  to  lay  their  cause  before  the  first  council  of 
the  Christian  Church  at  Jerusalem.  They  were  there 
because  the  Church  at  Antioch  could  not  settle  the  ques- 
tion which  made  its  membership  like  the  troubled  sea."* 

A  comparison  of  the  action  of  the  Apostolic  Council, 
with  respect  to  the  appeal  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  with  the 
action  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1892,  with  respect  to 
the  appeal  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution,  is  exceed- 
ingly suggestive. 

The  Apostolic  Council  entertained  the  appeal  of  Paul 
and  Barnabas  and  issued  it  by  sustaining  it  and  by  sending 
down  a  decree  to  the  Church  at  Antioch  which  defined 
the  limits  of  the  Christian  liberty  of  those  Gentiles  who 
might  be  admitted  to  Church  membership. 

The  General  Assembly  of  1892  entertained  the  appeal 
of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  ;  issued  the  said  appeal 
by  sustaining  it,  and  by  sending  down  a  decree  to  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  defining  the  limits  of  its  liberty 
with  respect  to  this  case. 

The  decree  of  the  Apostolic  Council  to  the  Church  at 
Antioch  reads  as  follows  : 

ACTS  XV. 

"23  And  they  wrote  letters  by  them  after  this  manner  : 
The  apostles  and  elders  and  brethren  send  greeting  unto 

*  Acts  xv. 


174 

the  brethren  which  are  of  the  Gentiles  in  Antioch  and 
Syria  and  Cilicia : 

24  For  as  much  as  we  have  heard,  that  certain  which 
went  out  from  us  have  troubled  you  with  words,  subvert- 
ing your  souls,  saying,  Ye  must  be  circumcised,  and  keep 
the  law  ;  to  whom  we  gave  no  such  commandment : 

25  It  seemed  good  unto  us,  being  assembled  with  one 
accord,  to  send  chosen  men  unto  you  with  our  beloved 
Barnabas  and  Paul, 

26  Men  that  have  hazarded  their  lives  for  the  name  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

27  We  have  sent  therefore  Judas  and  Silas,  who  shall 
also  teWyou  the  same  things  by  mouth. 

28  For  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  us, 
to  lay  upon  you  no  greater  burden  than  these  necessary 
things ; 

29  That  ye  abstain  from  meats  offered  to  idols,  and 
from  blood,  and  from  things  strangled,  and  from  fornica- 
tion :  from  which  if  ye  keep  yourselves,  ye  shall  do  well. 
Fare  ye  well.'' 

The  decree  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1892  to  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  reads  as  follows  : 


11  The  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of 
America 


Appeal  from  the  judgment  of 
the    Presbytery    of    New 
VS.  York,  dismissing  the  case. 

Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D. 

"The   General  Assembly  having,  on  the   28th  day  of 
May,  1892,  duly  sustained  all  the  specifications  of  error 


175 

alleged  and  set  forth  in  the  appeal  and  specifications  in 
this  case, 

"  It  is  now,  May  30,  1892,  ordered,  that  the  judgment 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  entered  November  4, 
1 89 1,  dismissing  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America  against  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.  D.,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  reversed. 
And  the  case  is  remanded  to  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  for  a  new  trial,  with  directions  to  the  said  Presby- 
tery to  proceed  to  pass  upon  and  determine  the  suffi- 
ciency of  the  charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  legal 
effect,  and  to  permit  the  Prosecuting  Committee  to 
amend  the  specifications  or  charges,  not  changing  the 
general  nature  of  the  same,  if,  in  the  furtherance  of  justice, 
it  be  necessary  to  amend,  so  that  the  case  may  be 
brought  to  issue  and  tried  on  the  merits  thereof  as 
speedily  as  may  be  practicable. 

"  And  it  is  further  ordered,  that  the  Stated  Clerk  of 
the  General  Assembly  return  the  record,  and  certify  the 
proceedings  had  thereon,  with  the  necessary  papers  relat- 
ing thereto,  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York." 

The  decree  of  the  Apostolic  Council  was  at  once  the 
warrant  of  the  freedom  of  the  Gentile  Christians  from  the 
rite  of  circumcision — the  letter  of  the  law  of  Moses — 
and  the  direction  which  regulated  that  liberty  by  the 
meaning  and  spirit  of  that  letter. 

The  decree  of  the  General  Assembly  ordered  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York  to  try  this  case  on  its  merits,  and 
gave  it  liberty  to  amend  the  indictment  in  accordance  with 
the  general  nature  of  the  same.  So  that  the  Presbytery 
was  free  only  to  examine  the  charges,  weigh  the  testimony 


176 

for  and  against  them,  and  then  to  decide  to  sustain  or 
not  to  sustain. 

The  decree  of  the  Apostolic  Council  was  obeyed  by  the 
Gentile  Christians,  and  its  revelation  of  their  Christian  liberty 
made  them  rejoice  over  the  consolation  of  its  exhortation. 

The  decree  of  the  General  Assembly  was  not  obeyed 
by  the  New  York  Presbytery,  as  it  transcended  its  own 
proper  function  as  a  trial  court  by  recording  its  unwilling- 
ness to  express  its  approval  of  the  critical  or  theological 
views  which  were  the  basis  of  the  charges  and  specifi- 
cations, which  charges  and  specifications  it  declared  to  be 
sufficient  in  form  and  legal  effect.  The  Presbytery  ac- 
quitted the  defendant  on  the  ground  that  although  he 
might  deny  that  Moses  wrote  the  law  which  the  Gentile 
Christians  of  Antioch  observed ;  although  there  were 
cases  where  Church  and  Reason  could  do  what  the  Bible 
could  not  do  (enable  a  man  to  find  God),  yet  that  such 
statements  did  not  transgress  the  limits  of  liberty  allowed 
under  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  to 
scholarship  and  opinion. 

The  decree  of  the  Apostolic  Council  taught  the 
Gentile  Christians  of  Antioch  that  purity  was  the  absolute 
condition  of  peace.  So  that  when  the  question  was  be- 
tween purity  and  loss  of  concord,  the  former  was  to  be 
preferred  to  the  latter. 

That  the  appeal  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  is 
warranted  by  the  example  of  Paul  is  evident  from  the 
following  comment  on  the  Antiochan  controversy,  so 
much  the  more  significant  in  the  present  case,  since  it  is 


177 

from  Lange  on  Acts,  page  278,  issued  under  the  editorial 
supervision  of  Professor  Schaff  of  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary.  "  Paul  did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  connive  at 
error  by  silence  or  to  yield.  Peace  is  a  blessing  of  very 
great  value,  and  unity  in  the  church  is  an  important  end. 
Yet  it  would  be  unwise  to  seek  or  to  maintain  peace  at 
any  price,  and  to  regard  unity  as  absolutely  and  uncon- 
ditionally the  sovereign  good.  Truth  is  higher  than  all 
things  else.  The  pure  word  of  the  grace  of  God  in 
Christ  alone  must  be  maintained  or  recovered  even  with 
the  loss  of  concord.  This  is  the  course  which  the 
Apostles  and  the  Reformers  of  the  Church,  in  their  day, 
invariably  pursued." 

The  decree  of  the  General  Assembly  taught  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York  the  same  thing.  But  the  final 
judgment  of  the  inferior  court  was  an  unscriptural,  uncon- 
stitutional and  disloyal  effort  to  reach  peace  by  a  com- 
promise with  and  a  toleration  of  error. 

This  venerable  court  needs  no  additional  information 
with  reference  to  the  persistent  effort  continued  from  the 
beginning  of  this  process  until  the  present,  to 
question  the  standing  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  in 
spite  of  the  six  distinct  instances  in  which  the  Presbytery 
by  vote  and  act  determined  its  character  as  an  original 
party,  and  in  spite  of  the  confirmation  of  this  determina- 
tion by  the  Assembly  of  1892,  both  in  its  majority  and 
minority.* 

*  Record  of  the  Case,  May,  1892,  pages  58,  59,  68,  145.  Printed  Document, 
May,  1893,  pages  73,  162.     Minutes  General  Assembly,  1892,  page  90. 


178 

We  are  here  to  invoke  this  Supreme  Court  to  put  an 
end  to  the  dissension  and  disputation  which  the  New- 
York  Presbytery  vainly  endeavored  to  silence,  first  by 
the  dismissal  of  the  case  against  Dr.  Briggs  on  Novem- 
ber 4th,  1 89 1,  and,  second,  by  the  acquittal  of  Dr. 
Briggs,  on  January  9th,  1893,  qualifying  both  the  said 
dismissal  and  the  said  acquittal  by  the  positive  disclaimer 
of  any  approval  of  the  controverted  statements  of  the 
Inaugural  Address,  as  to  critical  or  theological  views,  and 
manner  of  expression. 

But  the  familiar  question  arises  :  Why  pass  by  the 
Synod  ?  We  make  but  a  single  remark  concerning  this 
exceptional  course.  In  a  pamphlet  copyrighted  by  the 
Appellee,  entitled  "The  Case  against  Professor  Briggs," 
there  is  a  record  of  a  truth  which  he  told  the  Assembly 
at  Portland,  when  he  said  "The  presumption  is  always 
against  exceptions,"  *  Dr.  Briggs  availed  himself  of  that 
presumption  in  two  speeches  before  the  Assembly,  which 
cover  eighty  pages  of  the  pamphlet  referred  to.  After 
listening  to  the  speeches  the  General  Assembly  decided 
that  the  presumption  in  the  matter  of  the  Appeal  of  the 
Prosecuting  Committee  from  the  action  of  the  New  York 
Presbytery  in  the  Case  of  Professor  Briggs,  was  not  against 
the  exceptions. 

Hence  several  of  the  Presbyteries,  and  some  individuals 
who  think  that  we  can  go  slow  only  by  going  wrong,  seem 
to  have  forgotten  that,  just  now,  the  Synod  of  New  York 
is  the  resort  of  those  who  want  the  Church  to  contradict 


*  Case  against  Professor  Briggs,  page  SI, 


179 

the  fact  that  the  judicial  decisions  of  the  General  Assembly 
are  final  and  obligatory  in  all  controversies  respecting 
doctrine  and  discipline. 

These  considerations,  along  with  the  three  reasons  set 
forth  in  the  Appeal,*  are  certainly  sufficient  to  establish 
the  essential,  the  utter  unconstitutionality  of  any  disposi- 
tion of  this  case  which  would  force  it  down  to  the  Synod 
of  New  York. 

The  form  in  which  the  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery 
was  returned,  gives  the  impression  that  the  alleged  errors 
of  Professor  Briggs  were  unimportant  and  that  no  essen- 
tial doctrines  had  been  contradicted.  In  fact  there  has 
been  a  tendency  to  minimize  the  full  force  of  the  indict- 
ment. The  errors  charged  are  fundamental.  The  ques- 
tion is  not  simply  whether  the  inspired  Word  is  free  from 
error.  That  question  is  referred  to,  in  but  one  of  the 
charges.     The  charges  relate  : 

(i)  To  the  question  as  to  the  supreme  and  only  au- 
thority in  matters  of  faith  and  practice.  The  fountain  of 
divine  authority — is  it  threefold  or  one  ? 

(2)  To  the  question  as  to  the  inerrancy  or  truthfulness 
of  the  inspired  Word  of  God. 

(3)  To  the  historical  validity  of  the  Old  Testament. 

(4)  To  the  question  as  to  the  fulfillment  of  Messianic 
prediction — a  question  of  supreme  importance  in  its  bear- 
ing upon  the  view  which  is  taken  (a)  of  the  truthfulness 
of  Scripture,  and  (&)  of  the  truthfulness  of  God. 

*  Printed  Document,  May,  1893,  page  17. 


180 

(5)  Lastly  the  doctrine  of  redemption,  concerning 
which  it  has  been  alleged  that  Professor  Briggs'  teachings 
have  been  especially  erroneous  and  hurtful,  but  which 
could  be  only  partially  tried  in  the  lower  court  as  will  be 
seen  by  reference  to  specification  second  under  both  the 
first  and  second  grounds  of  appeal. 

The  Christian  Intelligencer  of  January  18th,  1893.  con- 
tains the  following  communication  from  a  theological  pro- 
fessor of  the  Reformed  Church  : 

"  In  the  comments  in  the  last  number  of  the  Intelligencer 
upon  the  Briggs'  trial,  one  point  of  vast  importance  was 
overlooked.  The  decision  of  the  Presbytery  in  effect 
amounted  to  this : 

"1.  It  may  be  taught  in  the  seminaries,  schools,  pulpits, 
Sunday-schools,  families,  and  publications  of  all  kinds, 
that  a  person  may  deny  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
God,  that  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  that  He  made  atone- 
ment for  our  sins,  that  there  is  no  other  name  whereby 
we  can  be  saved,  and  other  essential  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  yet  find  God  and  be  saved  ;  Martineau  being 
the  proof. 

"2.  That  the  Church  of  Rome  is  a  fountain  of  author- 
ity, and  able  to  give  certainty  to  a  doubting  soul ;  Cardinal 
Newman  being  the  proof. 

"3.  That  the  Bible  (not  translations  nor  copied  manu- 
scripts), the  Book  as  received  by  all,  contains  errors,  and 
that  not  a  few,  but  as  the  defendant  in  the  trial  said,  '  I 
can  give  an  indefinite  number  of  instances,  both  in  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  New.'  (More  than  one  hundred 
of  these  have  been  already  found  by  infidels  and  answered 
by  Christians.) 


181 

"4-  That  Christ  in  asserting  that  Moses  gave  us  the 
law  (thora),  and  that  we  have  the  writings  of  Moses,  and 
that  the  Apostles,  in  stating  certain  passages  to  be  utter- 
ances of  Isaiah,  were  mistaken. 

"  Now,  Mr.  Editor,  all  this  has  not  been  done  in  a 
corner.  The  Presbytery  was  not  a  private  debating 
society.  The  question  and  the  answer  are  before  the 
whole  world.  It  matters  very  little  whether  the  members 
of  the  Presbytery  approve  or  disapprove  of  the  above- 
stated  doctrines  ;  one  thing  they  do,  united,  shield  locked 
with  shield,  they  stand  before  the  community  to  protect 
those  who  teach  them." 

"  S.    M.    WOODBRIDGE." 

H  New  Brunswick,  Jan.  13,  1893." 

Another  statement  is  as  follows  : 

The  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  is  an  attack  upon 

(1)  The  fundamental  proposition  that  guarantees  to 
us  the  whole  divine  authority  and  reliability  of  the  entire 
Bible.  An  attack  is  made  upon  its  inerrant,  unerring 
inspiration. 

(2)  The  fundamental  proposition  that  underlies  the 
absolute  necessity  of  sending  the  Gospel  to  the  heathen, 
to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power 
of  Satan  unto  God,  viz. :  "  There  is  none  other  name 
under  heaven  given  among  men  whereby  we  must  be 
saved."     Acts  4:12. 

(3)  The  fundamental  proposition  that  if  Moses  did  not 
write  of  Christ,  the  Jew,  is,  by  the  very  words  of  Christ, 
absolved  from  believing  on  Him.  "  For  had  ye  believed 
Moses,  ye  would  have  believed  Me,  for  he  wrote  of  Me. 
But  if  ye  believe  not  his  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe 
My  words  ?  "     John  5  :  46-47. 


182 

(4)  The  fundamental  proposition  that  Jesus  Christ,  in 
His  prophetic  office  as  a  Teacher  of  the  Truth,  is  inerrant 
and  infallible  in  all  that  He  says,  when  citing  as  witnesses 
to  His  Messianic  claims  Moses  and  the  Prophets. 

(5)  The  fundamental  proposition  that  the  souls  of  all 
who  die  in  the  Lord  are  "blessed  from  henceforth,"  and 
are  among  M  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect.''  Rev. 
14  :  13  and  Heb.  12  :  23. 

Here  is  a  series  of  errors  covering  the  whole  funda- 
mental structure  of  our  faith.  It  is  not  a  local  issue  like 
the  settlement  of  difficulties  in  a  single  congregation,  or 
of  two  or  more  congregations.  It  is  a  question  purely- 
doctrinal,  and  therefore  of  universal  importance  so  far  as 
Presbyterianism  is  concerned.  It  can  be  finally  settled 
by  no  presbytery,  by  no  synod.  It  requires  the  decision 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  its  highest  court. 

Your  Appellant  is  persuaded  that  this  Court  is  not  blind 
to  the  great  magnitude  of  "conclusions"  such  as  these 
— to  the  real  vital  issues  involved  in  this  case  ;  to  critical 
and  theological  views  which  are  the  outflow  of  that  nega- 
tive criticism  which,  under  the  name  of  christian  scholar- 
ship, threatens  to  sweep  away  the  one  foundation  on 
which  we  have  built  our  Christian  homes  and  institutions, 
thus  putting  both  our  Christian  faith  and  heritage  in  peril. 

But  we  are  told  that  an  appeal  from  a  verdict  of  acquit- 
tal is  out  of  order,  and,  therefore,  that  your  Appellant 
should  be  thrown  out  of  Court,  as  if  each  presbytery 
were  independent  of  every  other  presbytery,  as  if  our 
General  Assembly  did  not  possess  the  power  of  deciding 


183 

in  all  controversies  respecting  doctrine  and  discipline,* 
as  if  in  our  Presbyterian  system  the  whole  Church  were 
not  greater  than  any  of  its  parts,  f  The  sitting  of  this 
venerable  Court  to-day  in  this  city,  as  the  capital  of  the 
nation,  is  due  to  the  fact  that  treasure  and  blood  were  spent 
to  establish  the  truth  that  such  a  doctrine  in  our  political 
system  was  nothing  else  than  treason  against  the  govern- 
ment. So  does  this  Court  know  that  he  who  teaches 
that  the  power  of  the  General  Assembly,  representing 
the  whole  Church,  can  be  nullified  by  the  will  of  a  single 
presbytery  lifts  the  banner  of  treason  against  the  Presby- 
terian Church. 

It  rather  puzzles  the  ordinary  mind  to  find  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  York  pronouncing  a  verdict  of  full  acquittal, 
and  at  the  same  time  emphasizing  the  lower  Court's 
failure  to  express  approval  of  the  critical  and  theological 
views  of  the  Appellee,  and  hinting  that  the  present  dis- 
quietude in  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  due  to  his  hasty 
and  over-confident  statement  of  private  opinion.  Hence, 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  inferior  Court,  the  verdict  is 
against  the  evidence.  The  Presbytery  so  qualifies  its 
finding  that  the  full  acquittal  is  tantamount  to  a  conviction. 
The  lower  judicatory  seems  to  have  mistaken  "  the  grave 
issues  involved  in  the  case  "  and  "  the  present  disquietude 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  "  for  certainty  of  evidence 
against  the  Appellee. 

The  final  judgment  is  an  attempt  to  apply  the  Craig- 
head case  of  the  Assembly  of  1824  to  this  procedure,  by 

*  Form  of  Government,  Chapter  XII.,  Section  V. 
■j-Form  of  Government,  Chapter  X.,  Section  I. 


184 

making  it  the  precedent  of  action.*  When  the  inferior 
Court  affirms  that  no  man  can  be  convicted  of  heresy  by 
inference  or  implication,  it  means  that  such  is  still  the  case 
though  the  inference  be  necessary — though  the  implica- 
tion be  undoubted. 

In  this  connection  it  is  proper  to  remark  : 
(i)  That   the    Craighead   case   and    the   case   against 
Professor  Briggs  are  not  analogous  on  the  points  at  issue. 

(2)  The  position  that  a  man  cannot  be  convicted  of 
heresy  upon  an  inference,  even  though  it  be  a  necessary 
inference,  is  a  false  one,  and  that  was  not  the  principle 
upon  which  the  General  Assembly  of  1824  based  its 
decision  in  the  Craighead  case.  The  Apostle  Paul  con- 
demned the  heretical  Jews  of  his  time  by  clear  logical 
inference  scores  of  times.*)-  What  reader  of  the  Bible  is 
not  familiar  with  the  therefore  and  wherefore,  and  so  that 
with  which  he  introduces  the  word  of  condemnation  ? 

(3)  The  use  of  the  Craighead  case  in  this  matter  is 
an  Evasion  of  the  Facts,  and  what  lawyers  would  call 
confession  and  avoidance — a  subterfuge  on  the  part  of  the 
inferior  court  to  evade  its  clear  duty. 

The  Appellee  stands  before  the  world  doing  his  work 
as  a  Presbyterian  Minister,  as  a  representative  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  in  the  department  of  theological 
instruction.  Now  the  deliverances  of  the  General  Assem- 
blies of  1882,  1883,  1888,  1889  and  1892  (Dr.  Briggs 
himself  voting  for  that  of  1882),  the  disapproval  of  his 

*  Minutes,  General  Assembly,  1824,  page  122. 
\  Romans  II :  17-29-X  :  1-3. 


186 

appointment  by  the  Assembly  of  1891,  the  entertain- 
ment and  sustaining  by  the  Assembly  of  1892  of  the  ap- 
peal of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution,  the  qualified 
language  of  the  final  judgment  of  the  New  York  Presby- 
tery, the  fact  that  of  those  who  have  supported  Dr. 
Briggs,  whether  from  pulpit,  press,  or  seminary,  not  one 
in  one  hundred,  as  I  estimate  it,  will  subscribe  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Inaugural  Address,  all  prove  that  the 
Appellee  does  not  properly  represent  the  fundamental 
theological  opinions  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

Dr.  Briggs,  the  Appellee,  as  a  professor  in  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  is  a  representative  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  in  the 
department  of  theological  instruction  by  virtue  (1)  of  the 
fact  that  he  is  a  minister  of  said  Church,  and  (2)  of  his 
scholarship  and  of  his  qualifications  as  a  teacher  of  Bibli- 
cal Theology. 

But  the  ministry  and  membership  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  thus  represented  by  Dr.  Briggs,  include  those 
who  in  his  opinion  are  intellectually  inferior  to  himself. 
And  this  very  case  proves  that  there  are  crises  in  which 
that  ministry  and  membership  have  a  right  to  know  how  he 
means  to  act,  and  what  opinions  on  all  things  which 
concern  his  public  duty  he  intends  should  guide  his 
conduct.  If  any  of  these  opinions  are  unacceptable  to 
the  great  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  it  is  for  Dr.  Briggs  to  satisfy  that  majority  that  he 
nevertheless  deserves  to  be  their  representative  ;  and  if 
they  are    wise,  they  will  overlook,  in  favor  of  his  general 


186 

value,  many  and  great  differences  between  his  opinions  and 
their  own. 

There  are  some  differences,  however,  which  cannot  be 
overlooked.  Whoever  of  the  ministry  or  membership  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  feels  the  amount  of  interest  in 
the  relation  of  his  denomination  to  the  Church  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  which  befits  a  Presbyterian,  has  some 
convictions  on  the  doctrines  of  grace  which  are  his  life- 
blood  ;  which  the  strength  of  his  belief  in  their  truth, 
and  the  importance  he  attaches  to  them,  forbid  him  to 
make  the  subject  of  compromise  or  postpone  to  the  judg- 
ment of  any  one,  however  great  his  learning.  Such 
convictions  (the  points  of  direct  attack  by  Dr.  Briggs  in 
the  Inaugural  Address),  possess  the  heart,  soul,  strength, 
and  mind  of  the  large  proportion  of  the  ministry,  ruling 
eldership,  and  private  membership  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  No  body  of 
people  can  be  well  represented  in  opposition  to  their 
primary  notions  of  right.  A  correct  estimate  of  the 
relation  of  a  representative  to  his  constituency  does  not 
require  the  latter  to  consent  to  be  represented  by  one 
who  intends  to  represent  them  (in  this  case  to  teach  and 
to  preach),  in  opposition  to  their  fundamental  convictions. 
If  the  constituency  avail  themselves  of  the  representative 
capacities,  of  useful  service  in  other  respects,  when  the 
points  on  which  he  is  vitally  at  issue  with  them  are  not 
likely  to  be  mooted,  they  are  justified  in  dismissing  him 
at  the  first  moment  when  a  question  arises  involving  said 
points.* 

*  Mill,  on  Representative  Government,  Chapter  XII. 


187 

Such  is  the  philosophy  of  the  relation  of  Dr.  Briggs, 
as  a  representative  in  the  department  of  theological 
instruction  and  opinion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  to  the  said  Presbyterian 
Church.  And  that  philosophy  teaches  by  example  in  the 
history  of  the  "Case  against  Professor  Briggs,"  as  set 
forth  in  this  Argument. 

This,  then,  is  the  case  which  your  Appellant,  the  Com- 
mittee of  Prosecution,  has  brought  before  the  General 
Assembly  for  final  settlement.  If  the  remedy  which  we 
seek  on  behalf  of  the  Church  is  extraordinary,  it  is  because 
the  case  is  extraordinary. 

It  has  sometimes  been  assumed  that  the  persistence  of 
the  prosecution  in  the  case  "of  Professor  Briggs  is  an 
exhibition  of  willful  disregard  of  the  peace  of  the  church  ; 
of  a  litigious  and  disturbing  spirit ;  and  it  has  been 
maintained  that  the  American  Presbyterian  Church  is 
justified  in  tolerating  what  in  other  churches  is  called 
Broad  Church  principles,  in  defiance  of  the  teaching  of 
Holy  Scripture  and  our  Standards.  I  cannot  close  with- 
out referring  to  these  assumptions.  In  trials  for  alleged 
offences  against  the  standards  of  doctrine,  against  what 
are  believed  to  be  essential  doctrine,  it  is  impossible 
that  any  local  court,  however  learned  and  however  care- 
ful, should  determine  the  issue  for  the  whole  Church. 
With  all  respect  to  the  accused  in  this  case,  I  am  ready 
to  say  that  his  personal  interest  in  the  case  is  as  nothing 
in  comparison  to  the  interests  of  the  Church,  in  whose 
name  he  has  been  teaching. 


188 

The  Presbytery  of  New  York  has  decided  that  a  Pres- 
byterian minister  may  lawfully  teach  doctrines  alleged 
to  be  contra-scriptural  and  contra-confessional  which  Pro- 
fessor Briggs  admits  he  has  taught.  The  question  is  :  Will 
the  Church  consent  to  regard  that  judgment  as  final,  and, 
by  refusing  the  right  of  direct  appeal,  to  the  Prosecution, 
permit  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  to  determine 
ex-cathedra  what  is  really  Presbyterian  doctrine  ?  The 
questions  involved  have  to  be  answered  by  the  whole 
Church.  It  is  not  the  prerogative  of  the  Prosecuting 
Committee,  of  Professor  Briggs,  nor  of  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York,  nor  of  the  Synod  of  New  York,  to 
determine  finally  what  is  right  in  this  matter.  It  is  a 
question  which  is  to  be  answered  not  for  ourselves  alone, 
but  for  all  American  Presbyterians  both  now  and  for 
some  years  to  come. 

If  this  Prosecuting  Commitee  had  failed  to  call 
attention  to  the  irregularities  of  the  trial  below,  and  the 
mistakes  in  the  decision,  they  would  deserve  censure  at 
the  hands  of  this  great  representative  body.  The  Prose- 
cuting Committee  might  have  escaped  much  of  the  some- 
times harsh  criticism  which  has  been  directed  at  them 
from  certain  quarters,  but  they  would  have  done  a  wrong 
to  the  Church.  They  might  not  have  been  called  litigious 
or  disturbers  of  the  peace  and  work  of  the  Church,  but 
they  might  have  deserved  the  accusation  of  being 
recreant  to  their  obvious  duty,  and  unwilling  to  vindicate 
the  Presbyterian  claim  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth. 

Hence,   as  the  spokesman  of  hundreds  of  thousands 


189 

of  Presbyterians,  both  at  home  and  over  the  wide  world, 
in  the  name  of  law  and  order,  in  the  name  of  denom- 
inational loyalty  and  denominational  honesty,  in  the 
name  of  Scripture  precept  and  Bible  example — aye  in 
the  name  of  the  historic,  orthodox,  evangelical,  constitu- 
tional, missionary,  Presbyterian  Branch  of  the  Church  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  I  beseech  this  venerable  court  to  bless 
the  Church  and  the  world,  by  exercising  its  authority  in  a 
crisis  so  momentous,  as  to  make  every  plea  for  a  delay  of 
judgment  entirely  out  of  order. 

Thus  your  honorable  body  will  protect  our  communion 
from  what  one  of  your  number  has  called  "the  peril  of 
a  broadness  that  would  empty  our  souls  of  conviction  and 
our  lives  of  victory."* 

*  Rev.  Herrick  Johnson,  D.  D.,  in  his  opening  address,  McCormick  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  Sept.  1893. 


190 


VI. 

Argument  of  Mr.  McCook,  a  Member  of  the 
Prosecuting  Committee,  in  favor  of  enter- 
taining the  Appeal. 


Moderator,  Fathers  and  Brethren  : 

All  the  preliminary  questions  involved  in  this  case 
were  fully  discussed  and  determined  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  1892. 

Among  the  questions  thus  determined  are  the  fol- 
lowing : 

1.  That  the  appeal  was  taken  by  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  as  an  original 
party. 

2.  That  the  original  party  is  represented  by  the 
Prosecuting  Committee. 

3.  That  such  committee  is  a  Prosecuting  Committee 
appointed  under  Section  11  of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

4.  The  original  party,  by  its  Prosecuting  Committee, 
has  the  right  in  this  case,  to  take  such  an  appeal  from 
the  Presbytery  directly  to  the  General  Assembly. 

5.  That  such  an  appeal  is  regular  and  in  order. 

Under  a  strict  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  and 
the  precedents  established  by  the  General  Assembly, 
as  the  Supreme  Court  of  our  Church,  these  and  some 
other  questions  passed  upon  by  the  last  Assembly  are 
res  adjudicata  and  should  not  be  again  discussed. 


191 

The  law  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is,  that  it  is  not 

competent  for  one  General  Assembly  to  revise  or  review 

any  proceedings  of  a  previous  Assembly  taken  in  a 

Judicial  case.     (See  Appeal  of  Lowry,  Minutes,  1824, 

page  115,  Case  of  Worrell,  Minutes,  1864,  page  398.) 

I  must  take  a  few  minutes  of  your  valuable  time, 
to  deal  with  the  technical  points  raised  by  the 
Appellee. 

The  Appellee's  argument  that  the  Appellant  must 
prove  himself  an  aggrieved  party,  though  brilliant  in 
detail  and  interesting  in  method,  was  wholly  irrelevant, 
as  he  himself  frankly  stated  at  the  outset.  In  the  new 
Book  of  Discipline,  he  tells  us,  the  term  "original 
party"  replaces  that  of  "aggrieved  party  "  in  the  old 
Book.  It  is  fair  to  presume  that  this  change  was 
made  designedly,  but  in  any  event  the  revised  Book 
says  nothing  of  the  "aggrieved  party."  Section  94  of 
the  new  Book  gives  the  right  of  appeal  to  "either  of 
the  original  parties,"  and  gives  it  as  an  unquestioned 
constitutional  right. 

The  Appellee  enunciated  a  strange  principle  when 
he  informed  us  that  a  decision  in  a  judicial  case  is  not 
a  decision  as  to  doctrine.  He  intimated  that  litigation 
does  not  lead  to  final  interpretation  of  law.  Granting 
that  this  court  cannot  give  a  final  interpretation, 
nothing  could  be  easier  or  simpler  than  for  this  Assem- 
bly, in  its  legislative  capacity,  by  deliverance,  to  affirm 
the  decision  made  by  the  Assembly  as  a  Court.  But 
the  general  statement  is  erroneous.  The  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  by  the  Constitution,  is 
made  the  final  interpreter  of  the  Constitution.  Cases 
are  constantly  carried  thither  to  secure  a  definitive 
and  final  interpretation.  The  General  Assembly  is 
made  the  final  interpreter  of  our  Constitution.  It  has 
almost  invariably  refused  to  decide  principles,  in  thesi, 
requiring  a   concrete   case  upon  which   to  render  a 


192 

decision.  True,  the  General  Assembly,  like  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court,  may  err ;  but  its  decision,  like 
that  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  is  final,  is 
law,  and  must  be  submitted  to. 

The  Appellee  said  that  the  decision  of  the  New  York 
Presbytery  does  not  bind  the  Church.  True  ;  but  if 
ignored  it  will  bind  the  Church,  for  it  permits  the  doc- 
trines alleged  to  be  heretical,  to  be  preached  within  the 
bounds  of  that  Presbytery  without  rebuke.  We  are 
not  Congregationalists  ;  we  are  Presbyterians.  The 
New  York  Presbytery  is  not  like  the  Manhattan  Con- 
gregational Association ;  it  is  a  part  of  the  one  great 
Church,  whose  representatives  are  assembled  here.  Its 
decisions,  touching  doctrine,  affect  the  whole  Church 
from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific. 

The  ingenious  argument  of  the  Appellee  respecting 
the  use  of  the  terms  "decision"  and  "final  judgment" 
in  the  title  of  the  appeal  has  very  little  to  do  with  the 
case.  In  so  far  as  the  term  "final  judgment"  is  con- 
cerned, it  matters  not  whether  it  be  confined  to  the 
mere  assertion  of  acquittal,  or  be  extended,  as  the 
Presbytery  evidently  intended,  and  as  the  Committee 
of  Prosecution  thinks  it  should  be,  to  cover  the  whole 
judgment  rendered  and  recorded  as  the  judgment  of 
the  New  York  Presbytery  on  January  9, 1893.  In  this 
discussion  by  the  Appellee,  Section  95  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline  was  not  read  to  you.  That  section  gives, 
among  other  grounds  of  appeal,  the  following :  "  Has- 
tening to  a  decision  before  the  testimony  is  fully  taken, 
and  mistake  or  injustice  in  the  decision."  All  that 
portion  of  the  appeal  against  which  the  Appellee  pro- 
tested so  earnestly  is  relevant.  While  the  appeal  itself, 
as  you  will  see  from  page  4  of  the  printed  document 
placed  in  your  hands,  is  from  the  final  judgment  only, 
yet  according  to  Section  95,  all  errors,  all  actions  in 
any  portion  of  the  proceedings  from  their  inception,  to 


193 

the  record  of  the  final  judgment,  are  proper  grounds 
for  appeal.  By  reference  to  the  printed  record,  pages 
160  and  163,  you  will  see  that  the  entire  report  of  ' '  the 
Committee  appointed  to  bring  in  the  result  of  the  vote 
and  the  judgment  of  the  Judicatory"  was  accepted, 
adopted  in  its  several  parts,  then  as  a  whole,  and  that 
on  the  9th  day  of  January,  1893,  the  report  was  de- 
clared to  be  the  judgment  of  the  court,  and  was  entered 
accordingly. 

After  glancing  at  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  held  on  December  30,  1892 
(printed  document,  pages  137-8,  pages  143-4  of  this 
volume),  a  meeting  from  which,  under  the  provisions 
of  Section  23  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  the  parties  and 
all  other  persons  not  members  of  the  body  were  ex- 
cluded, you  will  see  that  the  acts  there  recorded  do 
not  fix  the  time,  from  which  the  ten  days  for  giving 
notice  of  appeal  under  Section  96  runs.  The  minutes 
do  not  indicate  that  the  result  of  the  vote  was  made 
known ;  it  is  not  recorded  as  a  part  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  meeting.  A  committee  was  appointed  to 
bring  in  the  result  of  the  vote  and  the  judgment  of  the 
Judicatory.  The  parties  were  again  admitted  to  the 
Judicatory  on  January  9th,  after  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee had  been  read,  accepted,  adopted,  and  entered 
upon  the  minutes  as  the  final  judgment  of  the  Judica- 
tory (printed  document,  pages  160,  163,  164,  pages  166, 
169,  170,  of  this  volume).  The  parties  were  then  re- 
admitted to  the  court,  and  the  final  judgment,  as 
entered,  was  made  known  to  them. 

Section  96  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  provides  that 
11  Written  notice  of  appeal,  with  specifications  of  the 
errors  alleged,  shall  be  given  within  ten  days  after  the 
judgment  has  been  rendered."  Within  ten  days  after 
the  judgment  was  entered  in  this  case  and  made  known 
to  the  parties,  written  notice  of  appeal  was  given. 


194 

In  view  of  these  facts,  I  ask,  is  it  frank,  is  it  fair,  is 
it  candid  to  suggest  that  this  appeal  was  not  taken  in 
due  time?  However,  this  quibble,  raised  by  the 
Appellee,  is  notjrelevant  or  material  now,  for  both  the 
majority  and  minority  of  the  Judicial  Committee  have 
reported  the  appeal  to  be  in  order,  and  this  Assembly 
has  already — 

"Resolved,  That  the  General  Assembly  finds  that 
due  notice  of  the  appeal  in  this  case  has  been  given, 
and  that  the  appeal  and  specifications  of  the  errors 
alleged  have  been  filed  in  due  time  and  that  the  ap- 
peal is  in  order  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline." 

I  should  not  have  taken  a  second  of  your  time  with 
these  details,  but  I  felt  it  was  necessary  to  show  how 
irrelevant  to  the  question  now  before  the  house,  was 
the  long  discussion  of  preliminary  points,  with  which 
the  Appellee  favored  us  during  the  afternoon  session  of 
yesterday,  all  of  which  points  have  been  definitely 
settled  in  this  case  by  this  or  the  last  Assembly.  Most, 
if  not  all,  of  these  preliminary  questions  discussed  by 
the  Appellee  yesterday  are  now  res  adjudicata  in  this 
case,  and  should  not  engage  your  attention  for  a 
moment. 

But  as  the  Appellee  in  this  case,  has  persistently 
urged  the  contrary  view,  in  all  the  Courts  of  our  Church, 
out  of  abundant  caution  and  so  that  no  duty  towards 
the  Church  at  large,  which  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
represents,  may  be  neglected  or  overlooked,  the  fol- 
lowing considerations  are  presented. 

Preliminary   Suggestions. 

The  Judicial  Committee  and  the  minority  thereof, 
having  reported  that  the  Appeal  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  Appellant, 
against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  Appellee,  is 


195 

in  order,  the  only  question  now  before  the  Assembly, 
sitting  as  a  Court,  is  whether  the  Appeal  shall  be 
entertained. 

This  is  a  technical  legal  question  which  the  members 
of  the  Assembly  must  determine  by  bringing  their  in- 
telligence and  common  sense  to  bear,  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  a  few  clearly  expressed  sections  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline  and  of  the  Form  of  Government  of  the 
Church. 

These  sections  now  to  be  referred  to,  do  not  contain 
words  of  double  meaning,  nor  do  they  leave  any  one 
who  studies  them,  in  uncertainty  as  to  what  was  meant 
by  the  persons  who  drafted  the  sections  referred  to,  or 
by  those  who  voted  to  make  them  a  part  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America. 

Every  Minister  and  Elder,  a  member  of  this  Assem- 
bly, at  the  time  of  his  ordination,  solemnly  asserted 
that  he  approved  of  the  Government  and  Discipline 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States. 

The  time  has  come,  when,  as  Commissioners  rep- 
resenting your  respective  Presbyteries,  you  are  brought 
face  to  face  with  a  great  crisis  in  the  affairs  of  our 
Church.  And  it  behooves  each  one  to  give  full  weight 
and  consideration  to  the  obligation  assumed,  when  that 
ordination  vow  was  taken,  and  without  fear  or  favor,  to 
see  to  it  that  his  duty  in  this  behalf  is  fully  performed. 

The  proceedings  now  to  be  taken  in  this  case  must 
be  conducted  under  the  provisions  of  two  or  three 
sections  of  the  Form  of  Government,  and  a  few  sec- 
tions of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 


The  Book  of  Discipline. 

This  Book  of  Discipline  has  been  part  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  Presbyterian  Church  for  nearly  ten  years, 


196 

and  is  the  controlling  statute  which  determines  what  is 
constitutional  and  what  is  or  is  not  lawful,  in  the  pro- 
cedure with  which  we  are  now  to  deal.  This  Book  of 
Discipline  was  not  adopted  by  the  Presbyterian  Church 
to  cover  this  case,  or  any  particular  case,  but  its  pro- 
visions are  to  be  applied  in  exact  equity  and  fairness 
to  all  cases  where  the  power  of  discipline  may  be  in- 
voked, to  secure  the  results  which  the  2d  Section  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline  so  well  describes  as  follows : 
"  2.  The  ends  of  Discipline  are  the  maintenance  of  the 
"truth,  the  vindication  of  the  authority  and  honor  of 
"  Christ,  the  removal  of  offences,  the  promotion  of  the 
"  purity  and  edification  of  the  Church,  and  the  spirit- 
"  ual  good  of  offenders." 


Attempts  to  Discredit  the  Book. 

It  has  been  popular  of  late,  in  certain  quarters,  to 
cast  reflections  upon  this  Book  of  Discipline  and  to  dis- 
credit it.  Whether  its  provisions  have  been  wisely  or 
unwisely  adopted  we  need  not  now  discuss.  It  is  the 
law  of  the  Church,  which  must  control  in  all  matters 
of  discipline.  Even  if  some  of  its  provisions  should 
seem  unwise,  to  those  who  are  not  likely  to  be  satisfied 
with  the  results  which  naturally  follow  from  a  clear, 
definite  and  logical  enforcement  of  the  same,  yet  it  is  a 
part  of  the  Constitution  of  our  Church.  Those  who 
still  honor  and  respect  that  Constitution,  and  their 
obligation  to  it,  assumed  when  they  took  their 
ordination  vow,  will,  I  am  sure,  give  their  voices  and 
votes  in  favor  of  a  proper  enforcement  of  its  provisions. 

The  Old  Book  and  Precedents  thereunder  are 
no  longer  authoritative. 

It  should  be  understood  from  the  first,  that  the  pro- 
visions of  the  old  Book  of  Discipline,  in  so  far  as  they 
have  not  been  re-enacted  in  the  new  Book,  and  the 


197 


precedents  based  thereon,  have  at  this  time,  no  force 
or  effect  whatever  as  law  or  precedents  in  the  Courts 
of  our  Church. 


Plan  and  Purpose  of  the  Revised  Book. 

The  intention  of  the  committee,  which  so  deliberately 
and  skillfully  drafted  the  present  Book  of  Discipline,  is 
perfectly  evident  to  those  who  study  its  provisions, 
carefully  and  without  prejudice.  That  committee  be- 
gan its  labors  in  1878,  and  continued  the  study  and 
work  of  preparation  until  the  Assembly  of  1884.  The 
idea  of  the  Committee  was  to  make  the  enforcement  of 
discipline  effective,and  at  the  same  time,  by  the  provisions 
of  the  Book,  to  discourage  unnecessary  or  litigious  pro- 
ceedings. The  plan  evidently  was  to  do  away  with  the 
undesirable  and  often  irresponsible  charges  which  arose 
under  the  Common  Fame  clause  of  the  old  Book. 

As  former  trials  had  in  more  than  one  instance 
aroused  strong  personal  feeling  among  members  of  the 
same  Presbytery,  it  was  determined,  if  possible,  to 
prevent  the  recurrence  in  the  future  of  such  a  condition 
of  affairs. 

To  remove  the  personal  element  as  far  as  possible, 
it  was  provided  by  Sections  6  and  10  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline  that  when  a  judicatory  finds  it  necessary  for 
the  ends  of  discipline  to  investigate  an  alleged  offence 
and  when  the  prosecution  is  initiated  by  a  judicatory, 
as  in  this  case,  the  proceedings  shall  be  instituted  in 
the  name  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  and  that  the  Church  at  large  shall  be 
the  prosecutor  and  an  original  party. 

To  place  the  proceedings  on  the  highest  possible 
plane,  the  plan  of  the  Book  was  to  make  all  of  the 
members  of  the  judicatory  sitting  as  a  Court,  Judges, 
in  the  highest  and  best  meaning  of  that  term.  They 
were  not  to  be  advocates  or  partisans.    Provision  was 


198 

also  made  in  Section  11  that  when  the  prosecntion  is 
initiated  by  a  judicatory,  a  committee,  known  as  the 
Prosecuting  Committee,  shall  be  appointed  to  conduct 
the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages,  in  whatever  judicatory, 
until  the  final  issue  be  reached.  The  members  of  such 
a  committee,  when  appointed,  are,  by  that  act,  removed 
from  the  body  of  the  Court,  as  Judges.  Like  the 
minister  or  elder  who  may  prepare  or  exhibit  the  cause 
of  the  accused,  they  are  not  permitted  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment in  the  case. 

The  intention  of  these  provisions  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline  was  evidently  to  place  the  members  of  a 
judicatory  sitting  as  a  Court,  in  a  purely  judicial  atti- 
tude, and  to  preclude  any  one  who  might  exhibit 
prejudice  or  undue  zeal,  because  of  his  activity  in  con- 
ducting the  prosecution,  from  participating  in  any  way 
in  the  decisions  of  the  Court. 


The  Peovisions  of  the  Book  Safeguakd  and 
Peotect  all  Inteeests. 

The  result  of  this  is  that  the  interests  of  every 
minister,  officer  and  member  of  the  Church,  subject  to 
discipline  under  the  provisions  of  the  Book,  are  pro- 
tected in  the  most  careful  way,  and  proceedings  are 
not  so  likely  to  be  instituted  by  individual  prosecutors 
as  under  the  old  Book.  If,  however,  proceedings  are 
instituted  by  a  judicatory,  and  it  finds,  after  an  exam- 
ination by  a  special  committee,  that  it  is  necessary 
for  the  ends  of  discipline  to  investigate  the  alleged 
offence,  every  possible  safeguard  and  protection  has 
been  thrown  about  the  interests  of  the  parties  con- 
cerned. 

The  Book  of  Discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
is  a  part  of  its  Constitution.  All  ministers  and  officers 
of  the  Church,  by  their  ordination  vows  have  approved 
of  and  accepted  it  as  such  and  have  committed  them- 


199 

selves  to  its  support  and  enforcement.  When  we  know 
what  the  provisions  of  the  Book  are  and  apply  them  to 
the  facts  of  a  particular  case,  every  member  of  this 
Assembly  should  be  able  to  reach  a  wise  and  just  con- 
clusion, and  to  determine  what  his  duty  is  under  the 
circumstances. 

The  Book  of  Discipline,  Sec.  94,  provides  as  follows  : 

'  'An  Appeal  is  the  removal  of  a  judicial  case,  by  a 
"  written  representation,  from  an  inferior  to  a  superior 
"judicatory;  and  may  be  taken,  by  either  of  the 
"original  parties,  from  the  final  judgment  of  the 
"lower  judicatory.  These  parties  shall  be  called 
"Appellant  and  Appellee." 

No  question  has  been  raised  or  can  be  raised  as  to 
the  fact  that  the  judgment  entered  in  this  matter  by 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  on  January  9, 1893,  and 
now  appealed  from,  is  the  final  judgment  of  the  lower 
judicatory  in  this  case.  This  having  been  determined, 
and  the  fact  is,  I  believe,  unquestioned,  the  only  other 
important  point  in  this  section,  requiring  attention  at 
this  time,  is  whether  the  appeal  has  been  taken  by 
either  of  the  original  parties. 

Original  Parties. 
To  learn  who  are  the  original  parties  we  must  turn 
to  Section  10  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  which  is  as 
follows  :  "10.  When  the  prosecution  is  initiated  by  a 
"judicatory,  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
"States  of  America  shall  be  the  prosecutor,  and  an 
"  original  party  ;  in  all  other  cases,  the  individual  pros- 
"  ecutor  shall  be  an  original  party." 

Such  an  investigation  was  made  in  this  case  by  a 
special  committee.  It  made  a  full  examination  and 
report,  which  was  discussed  in  Presbytery.  The  recom- 
mendations of  the  committee  were  adopted,  and  a 
judicial  investigation  was  ordered,  before  the  Prose- 


200 

cuting  Committee  had  been  appointed.  There  is  no 
question  as  to  who  is  the  original  party.  This  section 
(10)  makes  it  mandatory  that  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America  shall  be  the  prosecutor 
and  an  original  party. 

Prosecuting  Committees. 
Within  the  bounds  of  a  Presbytery  which  is  sitting 
in  a  judicial  capacity,  the  Church  at  large  can  act 
only  through  a  committee  or  as  represented  by  a  com- 
mittee. This  fact  was  taken  into  account  in  preparing 
the  Book  of  Discipline,  and  provision  was  made 
therefor,  in  Section  11,  as  follows : 

"When  the  prosecution  is  initiated  by  a  judicatory, 
u  it  shall  appoint  one  or  more  of  its  own  members  a 
"Committee  to  conduct  the  prosecution  in  all  its 
"  stages  in  whatever  judicatory,  until  the  final  issue  be 
"reached;  provided,  that  any  appellate  judicatory 
"before  which  the  case  is  pending  shall,  if  desired 
"  by  the  prosecuting  committee,  appoint  one  or  more 
"of  its  own  members  to  assist  in  the  prosecution, 
"upon  the  nomination  of  the  prosecuting  committee." 

The  provisions  of  this  section  are  also  mandatory. 
It  does  not  say  that  the  judicatory  may  in  its  dis- 
cretion, or  if  necessary  appoint,  but  it  is  emphatic  and 
declares  that  it  shall  appoint  a  committee  to  conduct 
the  prosecution,  in  all  its  stages,  in  whatever  judica- 
tory, until  the  final  issue  be  reached. 

Notice,  here,  that  this  is  not  a  temporary  committee, 
to  be  quickly  created  and  quickly  discharged.  Such 
a  committee  is,  in  no  sense,  a  "Judicial  Committee" 
to  digest  and  arrange  papers,  etc.,  such  as  is  provided 
for  by  Rule  XLI.  of  the  General  Rules  for  Judicatories, 
the  members  of  which  may  sit  and  vote  in  the  case  in 
which  they  act.  The  prosecuting  committee  provided 
for  by  Section  11  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  cannot  be 
appointed  until  the  prosecution   has  been  initiated 


201 

by  a  judicatory.  And  this,  as  provided  in  Section 
6,  must  be  after  the  judicatory  has  found  it  necessary 
for  the  ends  of  discipline  to  investigate  the  alleged 
offence. 

Status  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee. 

Throughout  the  conduct  of  this  case  the  position  of 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  has  been  attacked.  Al- 
though the  status  of  the  Committee  was  fully  and 
finally  determined  by  the  last  General  Assembly,  this 
question  has  been  again  raised  by  the  Appellee,  in  his 
argument  in  opposition  to  the  entertainment  of  the 
Appeal. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  becomes  important  that 
the  members  of  this  Assembly  should  have  a  complete 
understanding  of  what  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 
the  Synod  of  New  York  and  the  General  Assembly 
have  done  with  reference  to  the  status  of  the  Prosecu- 
ting Committee  as  representing  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  the  Appellant 
in  this  case.    The  following  are  the  facts  : 

Action  of  New  York  Presbytery  as  to  the 
Prosecuting  Committee. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in 
April,  1891,  a  committee  was  appointed  to  consider 
the  Inaugural  Address  of  the  Appellee  in  its  relation  to 
the  Confession  of  Faith.  This  Committee,  in  its  report, 
recommended  "  that  the  Presbytery  enter  at  once  upon 
the  judicial  investigation  of  the  case,"  and  the  Presby- 
tery having  adopted  the  recommendation,  the  report 
was  adopted.  That  was  the  inception  of  the  case. 
The  Prosecuting  Committee,  of  which  the  Rev.  G.  W. 
F.  Birch,  D.  D.,  is  Chairman,  was  appointed  at  the 
meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  held  in  May, 
1891,  "to  arrange  and  prepare  the  necessary  proceed- 
ings appropriate  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs."  The  in- 
tent of  the  Presbytery  in  appointing  the  Committee 
was  to  make  it  such  a  Committee  as  is  contemplated  by 


202 

Section  11  of  the  Book  of  Discipline — namely,  a  Pros- 
ecuting Committee. 

An  appeal  was  made  to  you  this  morning  by  the  Ap- 
pellee, on  the  ground  that  he  had  not  been  courteously 
or  fairly  dealt  with  by  this  Committee.  This  Committee 
has  no  explanation  or  apology  to  make  for  anything 
that  it  has  done,  as  it  believes,  under  the  instruction 
and  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  in  pro- 
tecting the  interests  of  that  Church  against  what  is 
believed  to  be  fundamental  error.  Although  we  have 
been  so  often  criticised,  iu  the  public  press  and  else- 
where, I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  this  Assembly  to 
the  fact,  that  never,  except  upon  the  floor  of  the  Courts 
of  this  Church,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  any  member  of 
this  Committee  given  public  expression  to  his  views  or 
ideas.  We  have  held  that  we  represented  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  as  a 
whole,  and  if  it  appeared  to  be  for  the  interest  of  any 
one  to  criticise  or  blame  us,  that  we  would  have  to  take 
the  blame,  until  the  final  issue  is  reached,  and  the 
Presbyterian  Church  determines  whether  we  have  or 
have  not  done  our  duty.  But  the  suggestion  was  made 
by  him  that  courtesy  had  not  been  extended  to  the 
Appellee  in  this  matter.  It  is  only  right  and  fair  that 
you  should  know  (everybody  in  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York  knows  it,  for  the  letter  I  am  about  to  read 
has  been  read  in  the  hearing  of  that  Presbytery),  that 
before  a  single  step  was  taken  by  the  Committee 
appointed  by  the  Presbytery  to  consider  the  Inaugural 
Address,  the  Chairman  of  that  Committee  wrote  to  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Briggs,  suggesting  that  meetings  of  the  Com- 
mittee would  be  held  at  a  certain  time  and  place,  and 
asking  that  Dr.  Briggs  would  join  them,  for  conference, 
before  any  action  was  taken.  I  will  now  read  to  you, 
without  comment,  the  answer  received  by  the  Commit- 
tee to  their  invitation,  and  then  I  shall  let  the  matter 
pass. 


203 

"120  West  93d  Street, 

"  New  York,  April  24,  1891. 
"  The  Rev.  G.  W.  F.  Birch,  D.  D. 
"My  dear  Sir: 

"  In  response  to  yonr  letter  of  April  23d, 
"  inviting  me  to  be  present  at  the  next  meeting  of  a 
"  committee,  of  which  yon  are  Chairman,  I  beg  leave 
"  to  say :  (1)  The  state  of  my  health  will  not  admit  of 
"  my  compliance  with  your  invitation,  and  (2)  If  I 
"  were  in  good  health,  I  wonld  still  be  obliged  to 
"  decline,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  seem  that  your 
"  committee  were  appointed  to  consider  my  'Inaugural 
"  Address,'  and  not  to  consider  any  explanations  of  it 
"  I  might  be  willing  to  make. 

"  Yours  respectfully, 

"  C.  A.  Briggs." 

The  Presbytery  of  New  York  has  regarded  the  said 
Committee,  at  all  times,  as  a  Prosecuting  Committee, 
appointed  in  accordance  with  Section  11  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  following  action  and 
extracts  from  its  records. 

The  Presbytery  accepted  and  adopted  the  charges 
and  specifications  prepared  by  the  Committee  and 
entered  upon  the  trial,  with  this  Committee  acting  as 
a  Committee  of  Prosecution,  and  the  Appellee  himself 
agreed  in  open  session  of  the  Presbytery,  on  October 
6,  1891,  that  he  would  so  proceed  to  trial,  and  that 
arrangement  is  recorded  at  page  479  of  Volume  13  of 
the  Records  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  as  follows  : 

u  By  agreement  between  Dr.  Briggs  and  the  Prose- 
cuting Committee  *  it  was  resolved  that  the  4th  day  of 
November,  1891,  at  10  a.  m.,  be  fixed  as  the  day  on 
which  the  citation  is  returnable  and  that  the  citation 


*  The  italics  throughout,  unless  otherwise  indicated,  are  mine. — 
J.  J.  McO. 


204 

be  issued  for  that  date,  in  accordance  with  Section  19 
of  the  Book  of  Discipline." 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  citation  served 
upon  Dr.  Briggs  by  the  Moderator,  in  the  presence 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  on  September  6,  1891 : 

"Citation. 

u  You  are  hereby  furnished  with  a  copy  of  the 
charges  and  specifications  presented  to  the  Presbytery 
on  the  5th  day  of  October,  1891,  by  the  Committee 
of  Prosecution  appointed  by  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  at  its  meeting  in  May  last,  which  report,  with 
its  accompanying  recommendations,  were  accepted  and 
adopted  by  this  Presbytery  on  the  said  5th  day  of 
October,  1891. 

"(Signed)  John  C.  Bliss,  Moderator." 

The  certificate  accompanying  the  charges  and  speci- 
fications served  upon  Dr.  Briggs  by  the  Moderator,  in 
the  presence  of  the  Presbytery,  on  October  6,  1891,  is 
as  follows : 

"I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  an  authen- 
tic copy  of  the  charges  and  specifications  against 
Prof.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  which  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  has  ordered  shall  be  prosecuted. 

"  (Signed)  John  C.  Bliss,  Moderator." 

"October  6,  1891." 

The  following  quotations  are  from  Volume  13  of 
the  Records  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  and 
fully  indicate  the  status  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
and  the  purpose  and  intent  of  the  Presbytery  in 
appointing  the  same. 

Page  434.  "  The  time  having  come  in  the  order  of 
business  to  receive  the  report  of  the  Committee  of 
Prosecution  in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
Rev.  George  Alexander  asked  leave  to  introduce," 
etc.,  and  he  introduced  a  paper. 


Also  on  page  434.  "Objection  was  made  on  the 
ground  that  Dr.  Birch,  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
of  Prosecution,  had  the  floor,  and  that  the  motion  to 
suspend  the  order  of  the  day  could  not  be  introduced." 

Page  435.  "The  Committee  of  Prosecution  in  the 
case  of  Dr.  Briggs,  appointed  in  compliance  with  Sec- 
lion  11  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  at  the  meeting  of 
Presbytery  in  May  last,  reported  as  follows"  : 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  paper  proposed 
by  the  Rev.  George  Alexander,  D.  D.,  as  a  substitute  for 
the  recommendation  contained  in  the  report  of  the 
Prosecuting  Committee : 

Page  463.  "  Whereas,  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 
at  its  meeting  in  May  last,  on  account  of  utterances 
contained  in  an  inaugural  address  delivered  January 
20th,  1891,  appointed  a  committee  to  formulate  charges 
against  the  author  of  that  address,  the  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.  D." 

Page  463.  The  report  made  by  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  containing  the  charges  and  specifications 
"was  accepted  by  the  Presbytery." 

Page  470.  The  recommendation  in  the  report  of  the 
Prosecuting  Committee  in  the  matter  of  Dr.  Briggs 
was  adopted. 

During  the  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  on  November  4th,  1891,  when  the  case  was  dis- 
missed, the  minutes,  Vol.  14,  page  90,  show  that  the 
following  action  was  taken : 

"At  this  point  (after  the  reading  of  Dr.  Briggs'  Re- 
sponse), the  question  as  to  the  status  of  the  Prosecut- 
ing Committee  was  raised.  The  Moderator  decided 
that  the  Committee  was  properly  a  Committee  of  Pros- 
ecution in  view  of  the  previous  action  of  Presbytery  as 
recorded,  and  represented  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  and  was  in  the  house  as 


206 

an  original  party  in  the  case,  under  provision  of  Sec- 
tion 10  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and  is  now  virtually 
independent  of  Presbytery." 

"An  appeal  was  taken  from  the  decision  of  the 
Moderator.  The  question  was  divided.  The  Modera- 
tor was  sustained  in  the  point  that  the  Committee  was 
in  the  house  as  a  properly  appointed  Committee  of 
Prosecution.  The  Moderator  was  also  sustained  in  the 
point  that  the  Committee  as  representing  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  was  an 
original  party  in  the  Complaint." 

This  action  of  the  Judicatory  in  sustaining  the 
Moderator  upon  the  appeal  from  his  decision  as  to  the 
status  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  is  itself  conclu- 
sive evidence  of  the  intent  of  the  Presbytery  in  ap- 
pointing and  recognizing  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
as  such. 

The  above  ruling  of  the  Moderator  of  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  as  to  the  status  of  the  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee, which  was  appealed  from  and  sustained  by  the 
Presbytery,  was  undoubtedly  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  under  which  the 
Presbytery  was  then  acting  as  a  judicatory. 

Approval  by  the  Synod    of    New  York  of  the 
Presbytery's  Records. 

An  examination  of  Volume  13  of  the  Records  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  covering  all  the  proceedings 
above  referred  to,  except  the  last,  shows  at  page  483 
that  the  Synod  of  New  York  during  its  session  held  at 
Watertown,  New  York,  on  October,  22  1891,  examined 
and  approved  of  the  said  record.  The  said  Synod 
has  therefore  approved  of  the  appointment  of  this  Com- 
mittee and  of  its  action  as  a  Committee  of  Prosecution 
up  to  October  22,  1891.  The  period  covers  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  the  adoption  of  its 
report,  including  the  charges  and  specifications,  the  ser- 


207 

vice  of  citation  by  the  Moderator  upon  Dr.  Briggs,  and 
his  agreement  with  the  Prosecuting  Committee  in  open 
Presbytery  as  to  the  day  upon  which  the  citation  was 
to  be  returnable. 

Relation    of   a  Prosecuting    Committee    to   the 
Church  at  Large. 

The  mere  assignment  or  appointment  of  certain  mem- 
bers of  the  Presbytery  to  act  as  a  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee, when  once  made,  under  Section  11  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline,  gives  that  Committee  a  relation  to  the 
Church  at  large.  It  acts  on  behalf  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  It  represents 
the  entire  Church,  and,  as  such,  is  an  original  party. 
In  its  representative  capacity  it  is  the  prosecutor  and 
cannot  be  disturbed  by  the  Presbytery. 

If  this  were  not  so,  the  Church  at  large  could  not 
take  and  perfect  an  appeal,  although  it  is  one  of  the 
original  parties.  Yet  all  proceedings  initiated  by  a 
judicatory,  as  in  this  case,  must  be  instituted  in  the 
name  of  the  Church,  in  compliance  with  Section  10  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline. 

Whenever  a  judicial  process  is  initiated  by  the 
judicatory,  special  conditions  arise.  The  Presbytery 
is  placed  in  extraordinary  and  exceptional  relations  to 
the  Churoii  at  large,  in  that  the  Presbyterian  Church 
becomes  a  prosecutor  at  its  bar  ;  for  such  exceptional 
relations,  exceptional  provisions  are  needed,  and  they 
have  been  made.  The  Presbytery  ought  not  to  be 
judge  and  prosecutor  at  the  same  time. 

To  obviate  this  difficulty,  the  Constitution,  Book  of 
Discipline,  Section  10,  requires  the  Presbytery  to  ap- 
point a  committee  to  conduct  the  prosecution  in  the 
name  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America.  This  committee,  not  the  Presbytery, 
represents  the  whole  Church.  It  is  not  dependent  for 
its  existence  on  the  will  of  the  Presbytery.    It  does 


208 

not  derive  its  powers  from  the  will  of  the  Presbytery. 
It  is  not  limited  in  its  action  by  the  will  of  the  Pres- 
bytery. This  is  evident  from  the  following  consid- 
erations : 

1st.  The  act  of  Presbytery  in  appointing  the  com- 
mittee of  prosecution  is  ministerial  only.  The  com- 
mittee of  prosecution  is  in  no  sense  the  creature  of 
Presbytery.  It  owes  its  existence  to  the  Constitution 
itself.  The  Presbytery  has  no  discretion  in  the  mat- 
ter. Having  determined  to  initiate  judicial  process,  it 
is  under  obligation  to  appoint  the  committee  of  pros- 
ecution, whose  duties  are  defined  by  Section  11  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  nominates,  and 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate, 
appoints  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court.  In  making 
such  appointments  the  President  and  Senate  act  minis- 
terially, in  obedience  to  a  constitutional  requirement. 
The  power  to  appoint  and  to  confirm,  in  these  circum- 
stances, does  not  give  the  President  or  the  Senate  in 
any  degree,  the  right  of  control  over  the  action  and 
tenure  of  the  judges.  The  judges  are  appointed  accord- 
ing to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  ;  they  shape 
their  official  life  and  conduct  according  to  the  directions 
of  that  instrument,  in  entire  independence  of  the 
appointing  and  confirming  power. 

This  illustrates  the  position  of  the  committee  of 
prosecution  in  our  judicial  system.  The  mere  power 
of  appointment,  in  a  ministerial  way,  does  not  give 
the  Presbytery  the  right  to  control  the  action  and  life 
of  the  committee.  It  is  not  a  presbyterial  committee. 
It  is  created  by  the  Constitution,  which  determines  its 
duties  and  the  length  of  its  life. 

2d.  The  language  of  the  Book  necessarily  implies 
that  the  committee  of  prosecution  is  to  represent  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  every  case  where  the  judica- 


209 

tory  initiates  the  prosecution.     Section  11  of  the  Book 
makes  the  tenth  Section  effective. 

Section  10  directs  that,  when  a  judicatory  initiates 
prosecution,  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  shall  be  the  prosecutor,  and  an 
original  party  ;  and  Section  11  orders  that  a  committee 
shall  be  appointed  by  that  judicatory  "  to  conduct 
"  the  prosecution."  The  provisions  of  Section  11  are 
absolutely  necessary  to  carry  those  of  Section  10  into 
effect.  And  the  import  of  these  provisions  cannot  be 
mistaken.  The  Presbyterian  Church  shall  be  the 
prosecutor,  and  the  committee  shall  conduct  the  pros- 
ecution. Since,  then,  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  to 
conduct  it3  business  as  prosecutor,  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  the  committee  of  prosecution,  the  relation 
between  the  two  can  be  properly  expressed  in  any 
given  case,  only,  by  saying  that  the  committee  repre- 
sents the  Church. 

3d.  It  is  sufficiently  evident  that  the  committee  of 
prosecution,  and  not  the  Presbytery,  represents  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  for,  according  to  Section  11,  the 
committee  is  "to  conduct  the  prosecution,  in  all  its 
11  stages,  in  whatever  judicatory,  until  the  final  issue 
"  be  reached.'" 

This  language  means  that  if  the  case  be  taken  to  the 
higher  judicatories,  the  committee  of  prosecution  must 
follow  it,  to  conduct  the  prosecution  in  all  its  stages 
until  a  final  settlement  is  reached. 

But  if  the  committee  of  prosecution  has  only  a  pres- 
byterial  relation,  and  can  exist  and  act  only  by  the 
will  of  the  Presbytery,  then  it  cannot  exercise  its  func- 
tions beyond  the  bounds  of  the  Presbytery  whose 
creature  it  is.  It  would  be  precluded,  by  any  such  re- 
lations, from  prosecuting  in  the  higher  courts.  The 
Presbytery  itself  has  no  right  to  prosecute  either  at  the 
bar  of  the  Synod  or  of  the  Assembly,  and  cannot, 


210 

therefore,  empower  any  of  its  committees  to  do  so, 
although  it  may  appear  through  a  committee  to  defend 
its  own  action  before  a  superior  judicatory. 

But  the  Book's  meaning  is  clear,  that  the  Presby- 
terian Church  shall  continue  to  be  the  prosecutor  at 
every  stage,  and  shall  do  its  work  as  prosecutor  by 
means  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution.  That  com- 
mittee, then,  is  related  constitutionally,  not  to  the 
Presbytery,  but  to  the  Presbyterian  Church.  For  this 
reason,  its  duties  are  defined,  and  its  rights  are  guar- 
anteed in  all  the  higher  judicatories. 

The  words,  "in  all  its  stages,  in  whatever  judi- 
"  catory,"  as  used  in  Section  11,  involve  the  right  of 
appeal  for  both  original  parties  ;  and  since  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  as  an  original  party,  conducts  the 
prosecution  by  means  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecu- 
tion, it  is  the  intent  of  the  Book,  that  the  committee 
should  have  the  power  of  appeal,  in  the  name  of  the 
Church.  The  power  to  appeal  is  a  necessary  part  of 
that  prosecution,  which  the  committee  is  directed  to 
conduct  in  behalf  of  the  Church.  It  is  the  only  way 
in  which  the  Presbyterian  Church  can  exercise  this 
right  of  an  original  party. 

As  still  further  confirmatory  of  the  position  that  the 
Committee  of  Prosecution  is  not  a  presbyterial  com- 
mittee, but  is  constitutionally  related  to  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  we  have  the  additional  direction  of 
Section  11,  "that  any  appellate  judicatory  before 
"  which  the  case  is  pending  shall,  if  desired  by  the 
"  prosecuting  committee,  appoint  one  or  more  of  its 
"  own  members  to  assist  in  the  prosecution,  upon  the 
"  nomination  of  the  prosecuting  committee."  This 
provision,  alone,  suffices  to  prove  the  prosecuting  com- 
mittee wholly  independent  of  the  initiating  judicatory. 
That  committee  has  the  sole  right  to  determine  whether 
or  not  it  will  have  any  addition  to  its  membership, 


211 

and  then  to  name  those  to  be  added  by  the  superior 
judicatory.  If  this  were  a  mere  presbyterial  commit- 
tee, having  no  right  to  act  beyond  the  will  of  the  Pres- 
bytery, then,  whenever  it  might  become  desirable  to 
have  assistance  in  the  prosecution,  this  committee 
would  have  to  apply  to  Presbytery  for  additional 
members,  since  neither  Synod  nor  Assembly  has  the 
right  to  constitute,  increase  or  diminish  presbyterial 
committees. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  then,  that  the  Committee  of 
Prosecution  represents  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  an  original  party,  so  far  as 
the  prosecution  of  any  given  case  is  concerned,  and 
that  it  has  the  constitutional  right  to  take  an  appeal  in 
the  name  of  that  Church,  from  the  final  decision  of  an 
inferior  judicatory  in  the  case. 

Against  this  conclusion  no  serious  objection  is  urged 
except  that  no  precedents,  under  the  new  Book,  sustain 
it.  The  answer  to  this  objection  is,  that,  as  this  is 
the  first  important  case  of  the  kind,  arising  under  the 
present  Book  of  Discipline,  there  has  been  no  oppor- 
tunity to  establish  precedents,  except  as  was  done  by 
the  General  Assembly  of  1892,  in  this  case. 

This  new  procedure  was  adopted,  because  the 
practice  according  to  the  former  procedure  was  un- 
satisfactory. 

Steps  leading  to  the  Revision  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline. 

The  old-school  Assembly  of  1861,  on  motion  of  Drs. 
Charles  K.  Imbrie  and  Jonathan  Edwards,  sent  back 
to  the  Synod  of  New  Jersey,  the  appeal  and  com- 
plaint of  the  Presbytery  of  Passaic  against  the  Synod 
in  the  case  of  Mr.  Guild,  for  the  reason  that  the 
Synod  had  not  heard  the  original  parties,  the  Com- 
mittee of  Prosecution  being  one  of  them,  thus  recog- 
nizing the    right    of    the    committee  prosecuting  on 


212 

"  common  fame  "  to  take  an  appeal.    (Minutes  of  1861 T 
pp.  146-177.) 

The  Assembly  of  1877  dismissed  the  case  brought 
before  them  on  appeal,  from  the  Presbytery  of  Cin- 
cinnati, by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Thos.  H.  Skinner  and  others, 
who  acted  as  a  committee  of  prosecution,  on  the  ground 
that  the  appellants,  not  being  an  original  party,  were 
not  entitled  to  appeal.  But  a  strong  protest  was 
spread  on  the  Minutes,  in  which  the  protestants  argue 
with  entire  conclusiveness  that,  according  to  the  old 
Book,  not  only  personal  prosecutors  and  defendants 
in  a  judicial  case,  but  any  "  aggrieved  party,"  and  "all 
"  persons  who  have  submitted  to  a  regular  trial  in  an 
"  inferior,  may  appeal  to  a  higher  judicatory."  The 
protest  was  not  answered,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
the  positions  taken  in  it  were  unanswerable.  (Minutes 
1877,  pp.  576  to  580.) 

At  the  very  next  Assembly  after  that,  the  revision 
of  the  Book  of  Discipline  was  begun  ;  and  the  chapter 
on  appeals  was  reconstructed.  Original  parties  and 
their  rights  were  more  clearly  defined,  and  the  right 
of  appeal  given  to  them  exclusively.  That  uncertain 
quantity,  "  Common  Fame,"  was  banished  altogether, 
and  in  place  of  it,  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  was  made  the  responsible 
prosecutor,  an  original  party  with  specific  direction 
to  discharge  its  functions  of  prosecutor  and  original 
party,  by  means  of  the  committee  of  prosecution. 

In  the  old  Book,  "Common  Fame"  was  not  declared 
to  be  an  original  party;  but  in  the  new  Book,  the 
Presbyterian  Church  is  made  an  original  party,  and, 
as  such,  has  the  constitutional  right  to  take  an  appeal 
by  means  of  the  committee  through  whom  it  conducts 
the  prosecution. 

It  is  objected  that,  if  the  committee  of  prosecu- 
tion represents  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  is  thus 


213 

virtually  independent  of  the  Presbytery,  then  great 
evils  are  sure  to  overtake  us.  It  is  said  that  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  as  represented  in  the  General  As- 
sembly, may  itself  claim  the  right  of  appointing  the 
committee  ;  that  the  committee,  thus  entrusted  with 
enormous  powers,  may  use  them  to  the  great  injury  of 
accused  parties  ;  and  that  we  open  wide  the  gates  for 
a  perfect  deluge  of  litigation,  and  so  endanger  the 
peace  and  usefulness  of  the  Church  to  an  alarming 
extent. 

But  if  all  this  were  true,  it  would  not  change  the 
constitutionality  of  the  standing  and  rights  of  the 
committee  of  prosecution  under  the  Book.  It  might 
furnish  an  argument  in  favor  of  changing  the  Book. 
But  these  evils  are  all  purely  imaginary.  They  have 
never  existed,  and  they  are  not  likely  to  exist  under 
the  present  Book  of  Discipline. 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  of  the  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, a  Safe  and  Useful  Agency  to  Conduct 
Prosecutions  in  Behalf  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church. 

There  are  many  considerations  to  warrant  the  con- 
clusion that  a  committee  of  prosecution,  with  just  such 
relations  and  powers  as  are  indicated  in  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  is  not  only  entirely  safe,  but  also  highly 
desirable  as  an  agency  for  conducting  the  prosecution 
on  the  part  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.    For 

1.  The  court  which  initiates  the  prosecution,  is 
charged  with  the  duty  of  appointing  the  committee. 
No  other  body  can  appoint  it,  not  even  the  Assembly, 
since  the  Constitution  does  not  give  it  that  right.  The 
fact  that  the  committee  is  charged  with  grave  respon- 
sibilities and  endowed  with  a  large  measure  of  power, 
leads  to  the  exercise  of  caution,  first  in  the  initiation  of 
prosecution,  and  then  in  the  selection  of  the  committee. 
These  are  strong  safeguards  and  they  are  entirely 


214 

within  the  control,  in  the  first  instance,  of  the  respec- 
tive Presbyteries. 

The  fact  that  under  our  Book  of  Discipline  the 
Prosecuting  Committee  acting  for  the  Church  at  large 
is  vested  with  ample  powers  to  secure  prompt  decisions, 
is  likely  to  accomplish  very  beneficial  results. 

Presbyteries  will  be  careful  not  to  institute  judicial 
proceedings  and  appoint  sach  committees,  unless,  as  in 
this  case,  strong  reasons  exist  for  setting  the  proceed- 
ings in  motion. 

2.  It  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  a  committee  of  prose- 
cution, clothed  with  powers  of  the  kind  named,  will 
become  an  instrument  of  inflicting  wrong  upon  innocent 
parties.  The  presumption  is,  that  a  committee  of 
Christian  ministers  and  elders,  appointed  after  prayer- 
ful consideration,  by  a  judicatory  which  is  composed 
of  Christian  ministers  and  elders,  will  be  at  pains  to  do 
only  what  is  just,  fair  and  Christian  in  the  prosecution 
of  any  case,  and  that  all  the  more  so,  since  they  are 
impersonal  prosecutors. 

The  real  danger  is  that,  when  there  may  be  urgent 
need  for  initiating  prosecution  in  a  case  like  this,  no 
body  of  men  will  be  found  willing  to  serve  on  the  com- 
mittee of  prosecution,  as  they  will  thereby  make  them- 
selves liable  to  be  reviled  and  traduced,  as  this  Prose- 
cuting Committee  has  been,  for  rendering  such  service 
to  the  Church. 

3.  To  illustrate  specifically,  in  a  trial  for  heresy,  the 
Church,  through  its  doctrines,  being  the  party  attacked, 
is  in  more  immediate  danger  of  suffering  injury  than  is 
the  other  party.  Her  faith,  purity  and  peace,  her  testi- 
mony/or the  truth,  and  her  ecclesiastical  integrity, 
are  all  at  stake.  The  Church  ought  to  have  the  power  to 
appeal  from  an  adverse  decision  of  an  inferior  judica- 
tory, whose  members  may  be  in  sympathy  with  the 


215 

accused  or  with  his  erroneous  opinions.     Such  con- 
ditions are  not  impossible. 

An  accused  person,  owing  to  his  social  or  eccle- 
siastical position,  may  exert  an  influence  so  great  in 
his  Presbytery  as  to  render  it  extremely  difficult,  if  not 
altogether  impossible,  to  convict  him  even  on  the  best 
of  evidence.  Or  a  considerable  number  of  the  members 
of  that  judicatory,  through  sympathetic  or  other 
interests,  may  so  far  forget  their  positions  as  judges  in 
the  case,  that  they  will  not  only  try  to  retard  and 
hamper  the  prosecution  in  every  possible  way,  but 
actively  plan  and  labor  to  procure  an  acquittal,  no 
matter  what  the  evidence  may  be. 

If  the  Presbyterian  Church  should  have  no  right  of 
appeal,  by  its  committee  of  prosecution,  from  a  decision 
thus  reached,  by  possibly  a  bare  majority  vote,  then  in 
the  language  of  the  Book,  "heretical  opinions  *  *  * 
may  be  allowed  to  gain  ground,"  with  the  greatest 
ease,  and  to  an  alarming  extent. 

This  danger  is  not  imaginary  in  times  like  our  own, 
when  individual  liberty  of  expression  is  boldly  cham- 
pioned at  the  expense  of  denominational  bonds.  The 
Presbyterian  Church  must  have  disciplinary  methods 
such  as  will  enable  her  to  meet  threatened  dangers  of 
this  kind,  to  defend  her  faith  and  to  preserve  her  purity, 
her  integrity  and  usefulness.  To  this  end  the  Presby- 
terian Church  was  made  the  prosecutor,  and  an  original 
party,  in  certain  cases,  with  the  constitutional  right  of 
prosecuting  by  a  committee. 

Appeal  to  General  Assembly  of  1892. 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  representing  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  as  an  original  party,  appealed  from 
the  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  dismiss- 
ing the  case,  entered  on  November  4th,  1891,  to  the 
General  Assembly  of  1892. 


216 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  based  its  first  appeal 
from  the  Presbytery  directly  to  the  General  Assembly 
of  1892,  npon  the  special  reasons  set  out  therein,  which 
have  been  substantially  repeated  in  the  pending  ap- 
peal. They  also  relied  upon  the  provisions  of  Section 
102  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  which  is  as  follows : 
"  102.  Appeals  are,  generally,  to  be  taken  to  the  judi- 
catory immediately  superior  to  that  appealed  from." 
And  upon  Chapter  XII.,  Sections  IV.  and  V.  of  theForm 
of  Government,  which  are  as  follows  : 

u  I V.  The  General  Assembly  shall  receive  and  issue 
all  Appeals,  complaints  and  references  that  affect  the 
doctrine  or  constitution  of  the  Church  which  may  be 
regularly  brought  before  them  from  the  inferior  Judi- 
catories." 

"V.  To  the  General  Assembly  also  belongs  the 
power  of  deciding  in  all  controversies  respecting  doc- 
trine and  discipline." 

This  Section  IV.  of  the  Form  of  Government  is  man- 
datory and  says  the  General  Assembly  shall  receive 
and  issue  all  appeals  that  affect  the  doctrine  or  consti- 
tution of  the  Church,  which  may  be  regularly  brought 
before  them  from  the  inferior  judicatories. 

This  mandatory  provision  when  read  in  connection 
with  Section  102  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  leaves  but 
little  discretion,  when  the  conditions  named  by  the 
Book  have  been,  complied  with.  They  have  been 
complied  with  in  this  case,  and  it  would  seem  that  the 
Assembly  is  compelled  not  only  to  entertain  this 
Appeal  but  to  issue  it  as  well. 

Action  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1892  as  to 
Prosecuting  Committee. 
The  right  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  to  take  an 
appeal  directly  to  the  General  Assembly  and  its 
status  as  a  Prosecuting  Committee,  were  questioned 
at  Portland  and  were  fully  discussed  by  the  Appellant 


217 

and  the  Appellee.  The  record  of  the  proceedings  in 
this  branch  of  the  case,  will  be  found  at  page  90  and 
following  pages  in  the  Minutes  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly for  1892,  as  follows  : 

"The  Judicial  Committee  presented  its  report  in  the 
case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America  vs.  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  which 
was  accepted  as  follows  : 

"  The  Judicial  Committee  respectfully  reports  that 
it  has  carefully  considered  the  documents  submitted  to 
it  in  this  case,  and  adopted  the  following  resolutions  : 

"1.  That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Committee,  the  appeal 
taken  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America,  an  original  party  represented  by  the 
'  Committee  of  Prosecution,  appointed  under  Sec- 
tion 11  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  has  been  taken  from 
the  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  in  dismissing  the 
case;  and  that  the  said  Committee  had  the  right  to 
take  this  appeal  representing  the  said  original  party. 

"2.  That  it  finds  that  the  notice  of  the  appeal  has 
been  given,  and  that  the  appeal,  specifications  of  error, 
and  record  have  been  filed  in  accordance  with  Sections 
96  and  97  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and  the  appeal  is 
order. 

"3.  That,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Committee,  the 
appeal  should  be  entertained,  and  a  time  set  apart  for 
the  hearing  of  the  case. 

"  In  view  of  these  considerations,  the  Committee  re- 
ports that  the  appeal  is  in  order,  and  that  the  General 
Assembly  should  proceed  in  accordance  with  the  pro- 
visions of  Section  99  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  by 
causing  the  judgment  appealed  from,  the  notice  of 
appeal,  the  appeal  and  the  specifications  of  the  errors 
alleged,  to  be  read  ;  then  to  hear  the  appellant  by  the 
Committee  of  Prosecution;    then   the    defendant   in 


218 

person,  or  by  his  counsel ;  then  the  appellant  by  the 
Committee  of  Prosecution  in  reply  upon  the  question 
'whether  the  appeal  shall  be  entertained?'." 

In  behalf  of  the  Committee, 

T.  Ealston  Smith, 

Chairman. 


That  report  was  brought  before  the  house.  A  minor- 
ity of  the  Judicial  Committee  presented  a  report  which 
was  also  accepted,  and,  although  the  Assembly  subse- 
quently, after  full  discussion  by  the  parties,  laid  the 
minority  report  on  the  table  and  adopted  the  report 
of  the  majority  of  the  Committee,  that  minority  report 
and  the  action  of  the  Assembly  thereon,  becomes 
of  great  interest  and  importance,  in  view  of  what  is  now 
proposed.  The  minority  of  the  Judicial  Committee 
clearly  expressed  their  views  in  the  report,  and  there  is 
not  a  word  in  it  suggesting  that  this  Prosecuting 
Committee  was  not  a  duly  constituted  prosecuting  com- 
mittee. Nor  is  there  any  question  raised  as  to  the 
right  of  the  Committee  to  take  the  appeal.  But  what 
did  the  minority  recommend  ?    They  said  : 

"The  undersigned,  a  minority  of  the  Judicial  Com- 
mittee, would  respectfully  submit  the  following  report : 

"Whereas,  the  Book  of  Discipline  requires  that 
appeals  are,  generally,  to  be  taken  to  the  Judicatory 
immediately  superior  to  that  appealed  from"  (Sec. 
102) ;  and, 

Whereas,  There  are  no  sufficient  reasons  for  making 
the  appeal  against  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in 
dismissing  the  case  against  Dr.  Briggs  an  exception  to 
this  rule ; 

"  Therefore,  we  recommend  to  the  General  Assembly 
that  the  appeal  be  not  entertained  ;  that  the  papers  in 
the  case  be  returned  to  the  Appellant,  and  that  they  be 


219 

advised  to  bring  their  appeal  or  complaint  before  the 
Synod  of  New  York. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

D.  R.  Frazer, 
Thomas  Gordon, 
Oswald  P.  Backus, 
George  W.  Ketcham." 

If  this  Committee  was  not  a  Prosecuting  Committee 
and  had  not  the  right  to  appeal  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly, what  right  had  such  a  Committee  to  take  an  appeal 
to  the  Synod  of  New  York  %  Before  passing  away 
from  the  consideration  of  this  minority  report,  it  may 
be  well  to  recall  the  fact,  that  the  Portland  Assembly, 
after  hearing  the  arguments  on  both  sides,  and  after 
discussion  by  members  of  the  Assembly,  did  not  adopt 
the  recommendations  of  the  minority  report  to  refer  the 
case  back  to  Synod,  but  laid  the  minority  report  upon 
the  table,  and  adopted  the  recommendations  of  the 
majority  of  the  Committee. 

The  Assembly  of  1892  Declined  to  Return 

the  Case  to  Synod. 
The  General  Assembly  of  1892,  in  declining  to  send 
the  case  down  to  Synod,  acted  intelligently  and  has 
established  a  precedent  in  this  case  which  cannot 
be  ignored  when  that  branch  of  the  subject  is  under 
discussion. 

These  questions  as  to  the  status  of  the  Prosecuting 
Committee,  its  right  to  represent  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  as  an  original  party,  and 
its  right  to  take  the  appeal  directly  to  the  General 
Assembly,  were  all  brought  up.  After  three  hours 
of  argument  and  discussion  by  the  Committee  and  the 
Appellee,  and  by  members  of  the  Assembly,  action  was 
had  as  shown  by  page  118  of  the  Minutes  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  1892,  as  follows  : 


220 

"  Resolved,  that  so  much  of  the  report  of  the 
Judicial  Committee  as  relates  to  the  appeal  being 
found  in  order  be  adopted." 

This  action  adopted  all  of  the  committee's  report, 
except  the  two  lines  of  subdivision  3,  which  were 
excluded  because  their  adoption  would  have  carried 
the  adoption  of  the  report,  the  very  thing  that  was  up 
for  discussion,  namely,  whether  the  appeal  should  or 
should  not  be  entertained.  For  this  reason  it  was  con- 
sidered that  subdivision  3  should  be  reserved  for 
action,  after  the  arguments  had  been  made  and  this  was 
done. 

The  Appeal  to  the  General  Assembly  of  1892 
was  Entertained. 

On  page  119  of  the  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  1892,  you  will  find  the  action  of  the  Assembly,  on 
the  question  of  entertaining  the  appeal,  as  follows  i 

"It  was  resolved  that  the  vote  on  entertaining  the 
appeal  be  now  taken  without  debate.  The  minority 
report  was  read  and  laid  on  the  table.  The  Moder- 
ator also  announced  that  the  only  remaining  part  of 
the  majority  Report  which  had  not  been  adopted  was, 
'Third,  that  in  the  judgment  of  the  committee,  the 
appeal  should  be  entertained,  and  a  time  set  apart  for 
the  hearing  of  the  case.'  This  part  of  the  majority 
report  was  then  adopted,  carrying  in  the  affirmative 
the  question  of  the  entertainment  of  the  appeal.  It 
was  then  resolved,  that  the  Assembly  proceed  at  once 
with  the  case  in  the  order  prescribed  in  Section  XCIX., 
Book  of  Discipline." 

The  Appeal  was  Sustained. 

The  appeal  to  the  Assembly  having  been  entertained, 
the  question  came  up  as  to  the  action  of  the  Assembly 
on  the  merits  of  the  appeal.  The  merits  were  then 
discussed  for  an  hour  and  a  half  by  each  of  the  parties, 
and  at  the  end  of  that  discussion  a  vote  was  taken  and 


221 

the  appeal  was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  431  to  87.  (General 
Assembly  Minutes,  1892,  pp.  140-150.)  "  The  Moderator 
announced  that  the  specification  of  errors  in  the  appeal 
were  all  sustained,  and  the  appeal  was  sustained." 
A  committee  was  appointed  to  bring  in  a  minute  in  the 
case,  the  report  of  which  will  be  found  at  page  152  of 
the  Minutes  of  1892,  as  follows : 

"The  Committee  appointed  to  prepare  a  minute  in 
the  judicial  case  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D., 
presented  its  report,  which  was  adopted,  and  is  as 
follows : 

"To  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  : 

u  Your  Committee  appointed  to  draft  a  form  of  judg- 
ment to  be  entered  in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  against  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  respectfully  report,  and  rec- 
ommend for  adoption,  the  accompanying  form  of 
decree  and  order. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

Thomas  Ewing, 

Chairman." 


222 


"The  Presbyterian  Church 

in  the  /      Appeal  from  thejudg- 

United  States  of  America,  >  ™f^  f**m  *?*#*!* 
vs. 
Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D 


of  New  York,  dismissing 
the  case. 


"  The  General  Assembly  having,  on  the  28th  day  of 
May,  1892,  duly  sustained  all  the  specifications  of  error 
alleged  and  set  forth  in  the  appeal  and  specification  in 
this  case. 

"  It  is  now,  May  30, 1892,  ordered,  that  the  judgment 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  entered  November  4, 
1891,  dismissing  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America  against  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby  reversed. 
And  the  case  is  remanded  to  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  for  a  new  trial,  with  directions  to  the  said  Pres- 
bytery to  proceed  to  pass  upon  and  determine  the  suf- 
ficiency of  the  charges  and  specifications  in  form  and 
legal  effect,  and  to  permit  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
to  amend  the  specifications  or  charges,  not  changing 
the  general  nature  of  the  same,  if,  in  the  furtherance 
of  justice,  it  be  necessary  to  amend,  so  that  the  case 
may  be  brought  to  issue  and  tried  on  the  merits  thereof 
as  speedily  as  may  be  practical. 

"And  it  is  further  ordered,  that  the  stated  clerk  of 
the  General  Assembly  return  the  reoord,  and  certify 
the  proceedings  had  thereon,  with  the  necessary  papers 
relating  thereto,  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York." 

The  exact  status  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  was 
fully  recognized  and  defined  in  the  report  of  the 
majority  of  the  Judicial  Committee,  which  was 
adopted  by  the  Assembly.  It  was  not  questioned 
in  the  minority  report  and  it  was  established  by  the 
entertainment  and  sustaining  of  the  Appeal.     In  the 


223 

mandate  of  the  Assembly  to  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  the  rights  of  the  Committee  are  recognized  in 
express  terms. 

No  fair-minded  man,  after  reading  the  record  of  what 
was  done  in  this  case,  by  the  General  Assembly  of 
1892,  can  longer  question  the  status  of  the  Prosecuting 
Committee,  but  if  any  further  evidence  should  be  re- 
quired as  to  what  that  Assembly  did  and  intended  to 
do,  it  would  be  found  in  a  protest  presented  by  the 
Rev.  S.  J.  McPherson,  D.  D.,  and  some  53  or  54  others, 
against  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly,  which 
protest  is  found  at  page  205  of  the  Minutes  of  1892. 
There  was  no  misunderstanding  at  Portland,  on  either 
side,  as  to  what  had  taken  place,  as  the  protest  which 
certain  of  those  who  were  on  the  ground  and  disap- 
proved of  the  Assembly's  action  clearly  shows,  as 
follows  : 

"  The  following  protest  was  presented  and  ordered 
to  be  entered  on  the  '  Minutes '  of  the  Assembly  with- 
out answer. 

"We,  the  undersigned,  ministers  and  elders,  com- 
missioners of  the  104th  General  Assembly,  do  hereby 
enter  and  record  our  protest  against  the  action  of  the 
General  Assembly  in  entertaining  the  appeal  in  the 
case  of  'The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,' 
and  so  giving  to  the  Committee  which  preferred  the 
charges  against  Dr.  Briggs  standing  before  the  Assem- 
bly and  right  of  appeal  as  an  '■original  party,' 
beyond  the  control  of  the  Presbytery  and  its  power  to 
discharge  them  when  dismissing  the  case"  *    *    * 

The  General  Assembly  cannot  Revise  or  Reverse 
Action  taken  by  a  Previous  Assembly  in 
a  Judicial  Case. 
It  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  action  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  1892,  in  deciding  substantially  all  of 


224 

the  questions  which  can  be  raised  in  opposition  to  the 
entertainment  of  this  appeal,  is  not  to  be  referred  to 
simply  as  a  precedent,  in  a  case  similar  to  this.  It 
was  action  taken  after  full  discussion,  and  in  this 
judicial  case.  Among  the  questions  thus  passed  upon 
and  determined  by  the  Assembly  of  1892  are  the  fol- 
lowing, which  are  now  res  adjudicata  in  this  case. 

1.  That  the  appeal  was  taken  by  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  as  an  Original 
Party. 

2.  That  the  Original  Party  is  represented  by  the 
Prosecuting  Committee. 

3.  That  such  Committee  is  a  Prosecuting  Committee 
appointed  under  Section  11  of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

4.  The  Original  Party,  by  its  Prosecuting  Committee, 
has  the  right,  in  this  case,  to  take  such  an  appeal  from 
the  Presbytery,  directly  to  the  General  Assembly. 

5.  That  such  an  Appeal  is  regular  and  in  order. 

6.  The  appeal  being  regular  and  in  order,  it  must  be 
received  and  issued  by  the  Assembly  and  should  not  be 
sent  down  to  Synod.  (Form  of  Government,  Chap. 
XII. ,  Sec.  IV.)   ' 

It  is  the  law  of  our  Church,  that  it  is  not  competent 
for  one  General  Assembly  to  revise  or  reverse  the  pro- 
ceedings of  a  previous  Assembly,  taken  in  a  judicial 
case.  This  point,  as  stated  abbve,  has  been  settled  by 
the  General  Assembly  in  the  appeal  of  Samuel  Lowry, 
Minutes,  1824,  page  115  ;  case  of  T.  F.Worrell,  Minutes, 
1864,  page  398. 

The  case  before  us,  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.  D.,  is  the  same  case,  the  appeal  in  which 
was  entertained  and  sustained  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  1892,  at  Portland,  Oregon. 

By  reference  to  the  printed  Record  in  your  hands, 


225 

at  page  37,  you  will  find  the  mandate  of  the  General 
Assembly  in  that  case,  reversing  the  judgment  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  entered  on  the  4th  day  of 
November,  1891. 

This  order  of  the  General  Assembly  remanded  the 
case  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  directions 
that  the  case  should  be  brought  to  issue  and  tried  on 
the  merits  thereof.  The  mandate  also  directed  that  the 
Presbytery  should  pass  upon  and  determine  the  suffi- 
ciency of  the  Charges  and  Specifications  in  form  and 
legal  effect,  and  to  permit  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
to  amend  the  Charges  and  Specifications,  not  chang- 
ing the  general  nature  of  the  same. 

The  Prosecuting  Committee,  with  the  consent  of  the 
Presbytery,  the  Appellee  not  objecting,  filed  amended 
Charges  and  Specifications,  which  did  not  change  the 
general  nature  of  the  original  charges.  The  fact  that 
the  Presbytery  threw  out  two  of  the  amended  charges, 
Nos.  IV.  and  VII.,  upon  the  mistaken  ground  that  they 
did  not  conform  to  the  general  nature  of  the  original 
charges,  is  made  the  basis  of  Specifications  1  and  11 
under  the  first  ground  of  the  Appeal  now  pending. 

By  the  mandate  of  the  Assembly  of  1892,  the  Pres- 
bytery was  restricted  in  the  trial  upon  the  merits  to 
the  original  charges  or  to  amended  charges,  which  did 
not  change  the  general  nature  of  the  original  charges. 

The  fact  that  the  Presbytery  proceeded  to  trial  upon 
six  out  of  eight  of  the  amended  charges,  is  conclusive 
evidence,  that  the  judgment  now  appealed  from  is  in 
the  same  judicial  case  that  was  entertained  and  sus- 
tained at  Portland,  remanded  to  New  York,  there  tried, 
and  from  the  final  judgment  in  which  this  appeal  was 
taken. 

This  appeal  is  therefore  an  appeal  in  the  same 
judicial  case  as  that  decided  by  the  General  Assembly 
of  1892,  and  there  is  no  fact  to  justify  the  claim  made 


226 

by  the  Appellee  that  this  is  an  appeal  in  a  different 
case,  and  that  the  precedents  established  in  this  judicial 
case,  by  the  Assembly  of  1892,  are  not  controlling. 

All  the  points  decided  by  the  Portland  Assembly  of 
1892,  in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.  D.,are  decisions  in  this  judicial  case,  under 
the  same  title  and  with  the  same  parties  as  the  one,  the 
entertainment  of  which,  is  now  under  consideration. 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  precedents  above  re- 
ferred to,  established  by  the  Assemblies  of  1824  and 
1864,  which  remain  unquestioned,  absolutely  preclude 
this  Assembly  from  attempting  to  revise  or  reverse  the 
action  of  the  Assembly  of  1892  upon  any  point,  in  this 
judicial  case,  passed  upon  by  that  Assembly. 

Action  of  Synod  of  New  York  as  to  the  Prose- 
cuting Committee. 
Subsequent  to  the  proceedings  in  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York,  on  November  4,  1891,  which  resulted  in 
the  judgment  dismissing  the  case,  the  Rev.  Francis 
Brown,  D.  D.,  made  complaint  to  the  Synod  of  New 
York,  against  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  in  sustaining 
the  ruling  of  the  Moderator,  that  the  Committee  was  a 
Committee  of  Prosecution  under  Section  11  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline. 

After  the  ten  days  provided  for  by  Section  84  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  had  expired,  and  in  some  cases 
months  after,  the  names  of  a  number  of  persons,  113  in 
all,  no  one  of  whom  had  given  notice  of  complaint, 
were  added  to  this  complaint,  and  it  was  claimed  for 
it,  that  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  complained  of, 
was  had  in  a  nonjudicial  case,  and  that,  therefore, 
under  Section  85  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  said  paper, 
with  the  additional  signatures,  purporting  to  be  a  com- 
plaint, stayed  the  judicial  proceedings  until  the  final 
issue  of  the  case  in  the  superior  judicatory. 


227 

This  paper,  purporting  to  be  a  complaint,  was  pre- 
sented to  the  Synod  of  New  York,  at  its  session  held 
at  Albany,  New  York,  in  October,  1892,  and  was 
declared  to  be  in  order,  but  the  Synod,  after  extended 
discussion,  decided  not  to  issue  the  complaint,  and  by 
a  vote  of  122  to  40  took  the  following  action  : 

"In  the  matter  of  Judicial  cases  Nos.  3  and  4  (Dr. 
Brown's  complaint)  the  committee  finds  the  complaints 
to  be  in  order,  hut  recommends  that  it  is  inexpedient 
to  take  action  at  the  present  time  for  the  following 
reasons : 

"1.  The  case,  through  the  action  of  the  General 
Assembly  and  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  is 
again  before  the  Presbytery,  and  the  complainants  will 
there  have  their  remedy  in  their  own  hands. 

"2.  Incase  the  remedy  then  be  found  insufficient, 
they  may  afterwards  have  opportunity  by  appeal  or 
complaint  to  bring  the  case  before  Synod." 

When  the  matter  was  again  presented  to  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York,  it  was  discovered  that  the  com- 
plainants did  not  "have  their  remedy  in  their  own 
hands,"  for  the  Presbytery,  as  hereinafter  shown, 
promptly,  and  for  the  second  time,  sustained  the  ruling 
of  the  Moderator,  which  had  been  appealed  from,  as 
to  the  status  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee. 

Complaint  against  Action  of  the  Synod  of  New 
yokk,  now  pending  before  this  assembly. 
A  complaint  was  made  to  this  Assembly  and  is  now 
pending  before  it,  against  the  action  of  the  Synod  of  New 
York  in  declaring  the  said  paper  purporting  to  be  a 
complaint,  to  be  in  order,  in  respect  of  the  113  so-called 
complainants,  no  one  of  whom  had  given  notice  of 
complaint,  as  required  by  Section  84  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  and  whose  signatures  were  added  to  the 
paper  purporting  to  be  a  complaint,  after  the  expiration 
of  the  ten  days  fixed  by  the  Book  of  Discipline. 


228 

The  complaint  to  the  Assembly  against  the  action  of 
the  Synod  of  New  York,  last  above  referred  to,  brings 
up  to  this  Assembly  the  only  question  of  the  slightest 
importance,  in  this  case,  now  before  the  Synod.  When 
the  question  raised  by  that  complaint,  and  the  issues 
in  this  appeal,  have  been  considered  all  the  questions 
involved  can  be  at  the  same  time  and  finally  dis- 
posed of  by  the  highest  Court  of  our  Church. 

Final  Action  by  New  Yoek  Presbytery  as  to  the 
Status  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee. 

When  in  compliance  with  the  mandate  of  the  General 
Assembly  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  on  the  9th  day 
of  November,  1892,  proceeded  with  the  trial,  the 
Appellee  presented  objections  to  the  status,  rights  and 
powers  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  and  asked 
the  Presbytery  to  apply  the  remedy  which  the 
Synod  had  said  might  be  in  its  own  hands. 

Thereupon  the  following  proceedings  were  had  as 
recorded  at  page  262  of  Vol.  14  of  the  Records  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  : 

• '  A  point  of  order  was  here  raised  as  to  whether  any- 
'  thing  is  in  order  except  the  consideration  of  the  spe- 
'  cific  action  of  the  General  Assembly. 

' '  The  Moderator  decided  that  the  point  of  order  was 
'  well  taken.  That  the  raising  of  the  question  of  the 
'  status  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  and  of  its  right 
'  to  appear  and  continue  the  conduct  of  this  case  is  not 
'  now  in  order  for  these  reasons : 

"1st.  That  this  whole  question  was  fully  discussed 
'  and  decided  by  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  General 
1  Assembly. 

"2d.  That  the  recognition  of  the  status  of  the  Com- 
'  mittee  and  its  powers  as  defined  in  the  appeal  were 
'embodied  in  the  Judicial  Committee's  report,  recom- 
'  mending  the  entertainment  of  the  appeal. 


229 

"3d.  That  in  the  minutes  of  the  General  Assembly 
"giving  its  findings  in  the  case,  the  Committee's  status 
"is  clearly  recognized. 

"4th.  That  the  protest  recorded  in  the  minutes  of 
"the  General  Assembly  by  those  objecting  to  its  action, 
"was  based  on  the  fact,  that  its  action  in  entertaining 
"the  appeal  gave  the  committee  the  standing  and 
"powers  claimed  for  it ;  and 

"  Lastly.  That  the  order  sending  the  case  again  to 
"  this  Presbytery,  requiring  us  to  proceed  to  pass  upon 
"and  determine  the  sufficiency  of  the  charges  and 
"specifications,  as  to  form  and  legal  effect,  and  to 
"proceed  with  the  trial,  this  being  the  single  point 
"before  us  to  be  acted  upon,  therefore  the  Moderator's 
"  decision  is,  that  this  question  is  out  of  order. 

"An  appeal  to  the  house  against  the  Moderator's 
"decision  was  then  taken.  On  a  vote  being  taken,  a 
' '  division  was  called  for,  which  resulted  in  73  to  58  in 
"favor  of  the  Moderator's  decision." 

By  thus,  a  second  time,  sustaining  the  Moderator5  s 
ruling  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  gave  a  very  decided 
answer  to  the  Appellee's  request.  It  confirmed  its 
previous  action,  and  based  the  same  upon  the  action 
of  the  General  Assembly  of  1892,  which  fully  sustained 
the  status,  rights  and  powers  of  the  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee at  every  point. 

In  view  of  the  above,  it  is  not  creditable  to  our  intel- 
ligence, nor  loyal  to  the  decisions  of  our  highest  Court, 
that  we  should  give  this  matter  further  consideration. 

An  Alleged  Constitutional  Limitation. 

Great  weight  has  been  given  to  a  technical  question 
raised  in  the  interest  of  the  Appellee  and  of  delay,  based 
upon  a  clause  contained  in  the  Fifth  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  is  as  fol- 
lows:     *    *    *     "Nor  shall  any  person  be  subject 


230 

for  the  same  offense  to  be  twice  put  in  jeopardy  of  life 
or  limb."  It  has  been  claimed  that  this  constitutional 
provision  prevents  an  appeal  from  the  final  judgment 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in  this  case,  and  that  such 
an  appeal  would  place  the  Appellee's  "ecclesiastical 
life  "  in  jeopardy  a  second  time.  This  somewhat  ingen- 
ious but  inappropriate  use  of  the  term  "ecclesiastical 
life"  seems  to  have  confused  the  minds  of  some,  as  to 
the  character  of  proceedings  under  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline. 

The  Ordination  Vow  a  Covenant  and  Agreement. 

When  the  Appellee  was  ordained  as  a  minister,  and 
as  a  condition  precedent  to  such  ordination,  certain 
questions  were  addressed  to  him,  among  others  the 
following  (Form  of  Government,  Chapter  XV.,  Sec- 
tion XII.) : 

"1.  Do  you  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ? 

"2.  Do  you  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  of  this  Church,  as  containing  the 
system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  % 

"3.  Do  you  approve  of  the  government  and  disci- 
pline of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  these  United 
States  8 

"  4.  Do  you  promise  subjection  to  your  brethren  in 
the  Lord  \ 

*****  **  *  * 

"6.  Do  you  promise  to  be  zealous  and  faithful  in 
maintaining  the  truths  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  purity 
and  peace  of  the  Church ;  whatever  persecution  or 
opposition  may  arise  unto  you  on  that  account  % " 

To  each  of  these  questions  the  Appellee  gave  an 
affirmative  answer  and  these  questions  and  answers 
thenceforth  were  part  of  a  sacred  covenant,  contract 


231 

or  agreement  between  the  Appellee  and  the  Presby- 
terian Church  and  all  the  parties  in  interest. 

The  relation  then  established  was  a  purely  voluntary 
one  of  contract  or  agreement.  Good  considera- 
tions moved  each  of  the  parties  and  the  questions  and 
answers  established  the  agreement  or  meeting  of  the 
minds  of  the  parties. 

This  not  a  Criminal  Case,  but  a  Proceeding  to 
Determine  whether  the  Appellee's  Agree- 
ment HAS  BEEN    CARRIED   OUT. 

This  judicial  proceeding  is  to  determine  whether  that 
covenant,  contract  or  agreement  of  the  Appellee  has 
been  complied  with  or  not.  The  inaccurate  use  of  the 
term  "ecclesiastical  life"  cannot  change  the  nature  of 
this  proceeding  under  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

These  are  not  criminal  proceedings  involving  peril  to 
the  life  or  limb  of  the  Appellee.  They  are  proceedings 
to  enforce  a  contract,  or  rather  to  determine  whether 
the  contract  has  been  maintained  in  all  its  integrity. 
Preservation  of  "ecclesiastical  life  "  in  this  case  means 
simply  the  privilege  to  enjoy  the  benefits  of  a  certain 
contract.  If  it  should  be  shown  that  the  Appellee  has 
not  maintained  the  contract  in  all  its  integrity,  the 
loss  of  his  "  ecclesiastical  life "  would  mean  simply 
the  loss  of  the  benefits  which  he  at  one  time  enjoyed 
under  the  contract  which  he  had  broken. 

As  a  matter  of  law,  the  distinction  upon  which  I  am 
insisting  is  so  simple  as  to  require  only  very  brief  illus- 
tration. A  citizen  of  the  United  States  is  engaged  by 
contract  to  perform  certain  services,  for  which  he  re- 
ceives an  official  position  and  adequate  compensation. 
It  is  at  length  alleged,  by  the  other  party  to  the  con- 
tract, that  such  services  have  not  been  properly  per- 
formed, and  the  matter  is  brought  into  the  Courts,  the 
bill  praying  that  the  contract,  because  of  its  non- 
performance by  the  other  party,  should  be  cancelled  or 


232 

terminated.  A  decision  is  reached  in  the  Court  of  first 
resort,  in  favor  of  the  citizen  first  alluded  to,  and  the 
other  contracting  party  appeals. 

Would  the  appellee,  in  such  a  case,  be  justified,  or 
could  he  successfully  plead  that  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  protected  him,  and  that  he  need 
give  no  attention  to  the  appeal  %  Might  he  claim  that 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  precluded  the  ap- 
pellate Courts  from  considering  a  second  time,  on  ap- 
peal, the  points  involved  in  the  alleged  breach  of 
contract  %  There  is  probably  no  lawyer  in  this  country, 
there  is  certainly  no  lawyer  in  this  assembly,  who 
would  answer  these  questions  in  the  affirmative. 

The  failure  of  the  appellee  in  such  a  case,  to  comply 
with  the  terms  of  his  contract,  injures  the  other  con- 
tracting party.  He  may  not  wish  or  pray  for  damages  ; 
he  simply  asks  for  relief  from  a  contract  that  has  not 
been  fulfilled  by  the  other  party  and  from  a  relation 
which  has  therefore  become  intolerable.  But  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  contract  has  been  broken,  is  a  proper 
one  for  the  appellate  Court  to  consider  in  determining 
whether  the  appellant  is  entitled  to  the  relief  asked 
for. 

The  appellee,  in  such  a  case,  might  say  that  as  he 
was  dependent  upon  the  business  position  and  income 
secured  through  the  contract,  that  his  "  business  life ' ' 
and  his  "financial  life"  would  be  placed  in  jeopardy 
a  second  time  by  the  appeal.  But  the  twice-endangered 
business  life  or  financial  life  could  not  be  made  a 
ground  of  objection  to  the  appeal  as  such. 

Not  only  every  lawyer,  but  every  man  of  affairs  will 
assent  to  that.  What  has  been  called  a  man's  "  eccle- 
siastical life"  is  a  matter  of  great  importance,  but  it 
should  not  be  urged  as  a  ground  against  an  appeal 
in  a  case  where  an  ecclesiastical  covenant  is  involved. 
It  would,  indeed,  be  unfortunate  if  a  higher  code  of 


233 

ethics  prevailed  in  the  civil  Courts  of  this  country  than 
the  code  which  is  recognized  in  the  courts  of  this 
Church. 


The  Constitutional  Limitation,  above  referred 
to,  does  not  apply  in  this  case. 

The  provision  of  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
referred  to,  is  the  outgrowth  or  remnant  of  the  struggle 
for  security  and  safety  on  the  part  of  the  subject 
against  the  despotic  and  arbitrary  power  so  often  exer- 
cised by  kings  and  rulers  in  the  past,  over  their 
subjects.  It  originated  as  a  constitutional  and  very 
proper  safeguard  to  protect  the  subject  against  the 
power  of  a  sovereign.  This  provision  was  introduced 
as  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  simply  to  guard  against  the  power  of  the  Federal 
Government  and  the  Federal  Courts,  at  a  time  when 
alarm  was  felt  about  the  tendency  towards  Federal  cen- 
tralization of  power.  It  is  still  an  eminently  wise  con- 
stitutional provision, and  properly  controls  in  the  admin- 
istration of  justice  in  all  criminal  cases  where  the  death 
penalty  or  other  serious  legal  penalty  is  enforced,  but 
it  has  no  place  or  influence  in  the  orderly  enforcement 
of  discipline  under  the  Constitution  of  a  voluntary  asso- 
ciation like  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

No  one  is  forced  to  accept  the  doctrines  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.  No  one  is  forced  to  remain  in  a 
position  where  one  is  subject  to  its  discipline.  But 
when  any  one  has  voluntarily  entered  into  covenant  or 
agreement  with  that  Church,  he  is  honorably  and 
morally  bound  to  submit  to  the  orderly  enforcement  of 
its  law.  So  long  as  he  remains  in  this  ecclesiastical 
fellowship  and  communion,  it  is  not  lawful  or  right  to 
invoke  the  provisions  of  any  civil  law  or  constitution 
to  delay  the  orderly  enforcement  of  the  discipline  of 
the  Church,  or  to  prevent  it. 


234 

The  Confessional  Position  as  to  Civil  Laws  and 
Constitutions. 

The  Confession  of  Faith  enforces  this  distinction 
with  the  utmost  clearness.  Chapter  XXIII.,  Sub- 
section III.,  is  as  follows  :  "  Civil  magistrates  may  not 
******  jn  ^ne  ieas^  interfere  in  matters  of 
faith.  ;->-  *  *  *  *  *  And,  as  Jesus  Christ  hath 
appointed  a  regular  government  and  discipline  in  his 
Church,  no  law  of  any  commonwealth  should  interfere 
with,  let,  or  hinder,  the  due  exercise  thereof,  among 
the  voluntary  members  of  any  denomination  of  Chris- 
tians, according  to  their  own  profession  and  belief." 
*    *    *    * 

Decision  theeeon  of  the  Supeeme  Couet  of  the 
United  States. 

This  position  so  fully  and  clearly  stated  in  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  has  in  effect,  been  adopted  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  leading  case 
of  Watson  against  Jones,  reported  in  13  Wallace,  pages 
679-738.  This  case  is  commonly  known  as  the  Walnut 
Street  Church  case  and  the  opinion  is  given  in  full  in 
Moore's  Digest,  1886,  pages  251-262. 

In  this  decision  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  holds,  that  when  the  General  Assembly  as 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  has 
decided  any  question  of  doctrine  or  discipline  accord- 
ing to  the  Standards  and  Book  of  Discipline,  the  legal 
tribunals  must  accept  such  decision  as  final  as  against 
the  decision  of  any  Civil  Court  or  Constitution,  and 
that  the  Civil  Courts  will  not  even  look  into  or  question 
such  decisions.  This  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  says  : 

u  There  are  in  the  Presbyterian  system  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal government,  in  regular  succession,  the  Presbytery 
over  the  session  or  local  church,  the  Synod  over  the 


235 

Presbytery  and  the  General  Assembly  over  all. 
These  are  called  in  the  language  of  the  Church  organs, 
judicatories,  and  they  entertain  appeals  from  the  de- 
cisions of  those  below,  and  prescribe  corrective  meas- 
ures in  other  cases." 

"In  this  class  of  cases  we  think  the  rule  of  action 
which  should  govern  the  civil  courts,  founded  in  a 
broad  and  sound  view  of  the  relations  of  Church  and 
State  under  our  system  of  laws,  and  supported  by  a 
preponderating  weight  of  judicial  authority,  is  that, 
whenever  the  questions  of  discipline  or  of  faith  or 
ecclesiastical  rule,  custom  or  law,  have  been  decided 
by  the  highest  of  these  church  judicatories  to  which 
the  matter  has  been  carried,  the  legal  tribunals  must 
accept  such  decisions  as  final  and  as  binding  on  them  in 
their  application  to  the  case  before  them." 

"The  right  to  organize  voluntary  religious  associa- 
tions, to  assist  in  the  expression  and  dissemination  of 
any  religious  doctrine,  and  to  create  tribunals  for  the 
decision  of  controverted  questions  of  faith  within  the 
association,  and  for  the  ecclesiastical  government  of 
all  the  individual  members,  congregations  and  officers 
within  the  general  association,  is  unquestioned.  All 
who  unite  themselves  to  such  a  body,  do  so  with 
an  implied  consent  to  this  government,  and  are  bound 
to  submit  to  it.  But  it  would  be  vain  consent  and 
would  lead  to  the  total  subversion  of  such  religious 
bodies,  if  any  one  aggrieved  by  one  of  their  decisions 
could  appeal  to  the  secular  Courts  and  have  them 
reversed.  It  is  of  the  essence  of  these  religious  unions, 
and  of  their  right  to  establish  tribunals  for  the  decision 
of  questions  arising  among  themselves,  that  those  de- 
cisions should  be  binding  in  all  cases  of  ecclesiastical 
cognizance,  subject  only  to  such  appeals  as  the  organism 
itself  provides  for." 


236 

The  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  continues  as 
follows : 

"In  the  case  of  Watson  vs.  Farris,  45  Missouri,  183, 
that  Court  held  that  whether  a  case  was  regularly  or 
irregularly  be/ore  the  Assembly,  was  a  question  which 
the  Assembly  had  the  right  to  determine  for  itself, 
and  no  civil  court  could  reverse,  modify  or  impair  its 
action  in  a  matter  of  merely  ecclesiastical  concern." 

"We  cannot  better  close  this  review  of  the  authorities 
than  in  the  language  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsyl- 
vania in  the  case  of  the  German  Reformed  Church  vs. 
Siebert,  5  Barr,  291 ;  '  The  decisions  of  ecclesiastical 
courts,  like  every  other  judicial  tribunal  are  final,  as 
they  are  the  best  judges  of  what  constitutes  an  offence 
against  the  word  of  God  and  the  discipline  of  the 
Church.  Any  other  than  those  Courts  must  be  in- 
competent judges  of  matters  of  faith,  discipline  and 
doctrine  ;  and  civil  courts  if  they  should  be  so  unwise 
as  to  attempt  to  supervise  their  judgments  on  matters 
which  come  within  their  jurisdiction,  would  only  involve 
themselves  in  a  sea  of  uncertainty  and  doubt  which 
would  do  anything  but  improve  either  religion  or  good 
morals ' ." 

This  Decision  the  Law  of  the  Land. 

This  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  still  stands.  It  has  been  frequently  cited  with 
approval  by  the  same  Court  and  is  the  law  of  the  land 
upon  the  questions  decided  therein.  This  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  makes  final 
and  conclusive  any  decision  reached  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  to  matters 
that  concern  theological  controversy,  Church  disci- 
pline, ecclesiastical  government  or  the  conformity  of  the 
members  of  the  Church  to  its  Standards. 

Even  if  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  referred  to,  did  apply  to  proceedings  under  a 


237 

Book  of  Discipline  like  that  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
such  a  provision  would  not  be  in  point.  The  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  declares,  indeed,  that  no  per- 
son shall  be  subject  to  be  put  in  jeopardy  of  life  or 
limb,  twice  for  the  same  offence.  But  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  has  held  in  ex-parte  Lange, 
18  Wallace,  163,  that  this  constitutional  provision  was 
mainly  designed  to  prevent  a  second  punishment  for 
the  same  crime  or  misdemeanor  and  not  a  second 
trial.  Where,  as  in  this  case,  no  punishment  has  been 
inflicted  upon  the  Appellee,  the  Constitutional  provision 
is  not  to  be  invoked.  It  is  not  to  interfere.  It  has  refer- 
ence only  to  restraints  upon  the  general  government, 
and  its  courts.     (Baker  on  the  Constitution,  page  182.) 

[Here  the  argument  was  interrupted  by  adjourn- 
ment.] 

Before  resuming  my  argument  at  the  point  of  inter- 
ruption at  the  adjournment  of  this  afternoon,  I  should 
say  something  as  to  the  concluding  part  of  Dr.  Briggs' 
argument. 

The  declaration  of  his  faith  made  by  the  Appellee 
at  the  close  of  his  plea,  may  or  may  not  be  fully  in 
accord  with  the  accepted  forms  of  belief  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  One  point  should  be  noted  in  it,  how- 
ever. He  has  modified  his  answer  to  the  questions  of 
Union  Seminary,  for  he  now  declares  that  he  accepts 
the  Scriptures  as  true,  as  to  historical  facts,  a  modifica- 
tion sufficiently  broad  to  allow  of  acceptance  even  by 
one  who  believes  that  Jonah,  or  Ruth,  or  Esther,  or 
Job,  or  all  of  them,  are  unhistorical  characters. 

In  any  event,  the  Appellee's  confession  here  made, 
is  no  stronger  than  that  which  he  made  just  be- 
fore delivering  the  Inaugural  Address,  so  that  the 
question  remains  as  it  did,  before  this  new  statement 
was  altered  as  it  has  been  to-day.  In  the  Appellee' s 
judgment  his  inaugural  is  fully  in  accord  with  the  con- 


238 

fession.    The  question  for  you  to  decide,  is  whether 
or  not  the  two  can  be  in  full  accord. 

The  Appellee  referred  sharply  to  the  fact  that  on 
page  6  of  the  Record  the  Appellants  had  omitted  the 
series  of  questions  and  answers  included  in  the  pre- 
amble to  the  resolution.  Stars  were  placed  in  the 
record  to  indicate  an  omission,  as  should  always  be 
done  when  an  extract  is  not  full  and  complete. 

An  examination  of  the  page  will  show  to  any  candid 
man  that  everything  covering  the  matter  at  issue  is 
given  there,  and  given  in  fullness.  That  matter  was 
introduced,  not  to  tell  anything  respecting  Dr.  Briggs' 
soundness  or  unsoundness,  nor  even  to  tell  anything 
that  Dr.  Briggs  had  said,  but  solely  and  only  to  prove 
that  an  attempt  was  made  to  dismiss  the  case  because 
of  statements  made  by  Dr.  Briggs,  not  on  the  floor  of 
the  Presbytery,  not  in  response  to  queries  offered  by 
the  Presbytery,  but  made  to  a  body  of  gentlemen  who 
in  their  corporate  capacity  bore  no  direct  relations  to 
the  Presbytery. 

With  reference  to  the  confession  or  declaration  as 
made  by  the  Appellee  to-day,  I  was  very  glad  to  hear 
it.  I  have  heard  it  in  somewhat  similar  forms  on 
other  occasions.  But  those  categorical  answers  were 
given  and  were  replied  to,  after  the  Inaugural  Address 
had  been  delivered,  but  before  the  proceedings  in  the 
New  York  Presbytery  were  begun. 

During  the  first  trial  declarations  of  principles  were 
made  by  the  Appellee  and  the  case  was  dismissed. 
Keep  in  mind  the  only  thing  that  these  proceedings 
are  based  upon  is  the  Inaugural  Address. 

If  any  one  has  the  volume  in  his  possession,  and  will 
look  at  the  preface  of  the  third  edition '  of  Dr.  Briggs' 
Inaugural  Address,  which  bears  imprint  or  date  of 
November  5th,  1891,  the  day  immediately  following 


239 

the  first  trial  in  Presbytery — the  day  after  the  case 
had  been  dismissed — he  will  find  these  words : 

"I  have  seen  nothing  in  the  hostile  criticism  to  lead 
me  to  make  any  change  whatever,  either  in  the  matter 
or  the  form  of  the  address.  But  it  seems  to  me  wise 
to  republish  the  address  in  a  second  edition  under  my 
own  responsibility,  with  some  additional  notes  and 
explanations.  This  third  edition  contains  the  charges 
made  against  me  before  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 
Oct.  5th,  and  my  answer  thereto  of  Nov.  4th." 

The  fourth  edition  of  the  Inaugural,  which  is  dated 
in  the  following  year,  June  24th,  1892,  contains  the 
above  words,  reaffirming  at  that  date  the  declarations 
of  the  Inaugural  Address. 

The  charges  are  based  upon  the  Inaugural  Address 
only ;  and  the  Inaugural  Address,  as  you  see  by  the 
preface  of  the  succeeding  editions,  stands  not  re- 
tracted, not  withdrawn — stands  just  as  delivered. 

I  will  now  resume,  Fathers  and  Brethren,  at  the 
point  at  which  the  argument  was  interrupted. 

The  Alleged  Plea  that  an  Acquittal  by  a  Lower 
Court  Bars  the  Right  of  Appeal. 

It  has  been  frequently  claimed  of  late,  that  "  by  the 
law  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  the  acquittal  of  an 
accused  person  by  a  lower  court,  bars  the  right  of  ap- 
peal to  a  higher  court." 

Such  a  claim  is  not  true  in  fact  nor  sound  in  law. 
Some  have  been  led  into  mistake  in  this  matter  from 
not  distinguishing  the  very  marked  difference  between 
some  of  the  provisions  of  law  and  the  procedure  fol- 
lowed in  civil  and  ecclesiastical  trials. 

By  the  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications  in  this 
case,  the  accused  was  charged  with  delivering  an  In- 


240 

augural  Address,  in  which  it  was  claimed,  that  he 
taught  doctrines  which  are  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures and  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Upon  the  trial  the  accused  admitted  the  fact  that  he 
had  delivered  the  Address  containing  the  words  set  out 
in  the  Specifications  to  the  Charges.  But  at  the  same 
time  he  made  a  denial,  which,  in  the  Civil  Courts, 
would  be  called  a  demurrer,  as  to  the  legal  effect  of 
the  teaching  with  which  he  was  charged. 

In  a  trial  in  a  civil  court,  the  facts  as  to  what  he  had 
taught,  which  were  admitted,  would  have  been  passed 
upon  by  the  jury  ;  the  legal  effect  of  the  teaching  which 
he  denied,  would  have  been  passed  upon  by  the  Court. 
It  is  at  this  point  that  confusion  comes  to  some  minds. 
I  ask  you  to  carefully  distinguish  the  difference  be- 
tween the  organization  and  practice  of  the  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  courts. 

Under  our  Presbyterian  polity,  the  members  of  a 
Judicatory  are  both  jurymen  and  judges.  By  the 
admissions  of  the  accused,  that  he  did  deliver  the 
address  and  did  use  the  words  charged,  the  case 
passed  at  once  out  of  the  hands  of  the  members  of  the 
Judicatory  in  their  capacity  of  jurymen,  for  the  facts 
were  all  settled  by  the  admissions  of  the  accused.  The 
questions  of  law  had  been  already  determined  when 
the  Presbytery  accepted  the  charges  and  specifica- 
tions, as  sufficient  in  form  and  legal  effect,  if  proved, 
to  be  an  offence  and  sufficient  to  put  the  accused  on 
his  defence.  (Records  Presbytery  of  N.  Y.,  Vol.  14, 
page  369.) 

After  hearing  the  arguments  on  both  sides  the 
Judicatory  went  into  private  session  and  determined 
that  the  accused  should  be  "  fully  acquitted."  There- 
upon the  case  was  taken  on  appeal  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  Church  on  the  legal  questions  involved. 

It  would  not  be  proper  for  me,  at  this  time,  to  discuss 
the  further  steps  in  the  appeal,  but  it  is  sufficient  to 


241 

say  that  while  such  proceedings  are  seldom  taken  in 
our  ecclesiastical  Courts,  corresponding  proceedings 
are  taken  every  day  in  our  Federal  and  State  Courts. 

As  the  Form  of  Government  and  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline of  the  Presbyterian  Church  make  full  and  exact 
provision  for  appeals  to  the  General  Assembly  on 
doctrinal  and  constitutional  questions,  making  no  dis- 
tinction as  to  whether  the  decision  appealed  from  was 
for  or  against  the  accused,  no  good,  sound  or  legal 
reason  exists  why  such  an  appeal  having  been  taken 
should  not  be  entertained  by  this  Assembly. 

It  is  affirmed  that,  if  this  right  of  appeal,  espe- 
cially appeal  from  a  verdict  of  acquittal,  in  the  name 
of  the  Church,  be  granted  to  the  Committee  of  Prose- 
cution, it  will  be  in  gross  violation  of  the  Constitution, 
and  result  in  the  rankest  kind  of  injustice.  Surely  this 
objection  is  not  intended  seriously.  How  can  that  be  a 
violation  of  the  constitution  for  which  the  constitution 
makes  express  provision  %  The  absence  of  precedent  for 
the  exercise  of  this  right  by  the  Committee  of  Prosecu- 
tion, does  not  make  its  exercise  unconstitutional,  for, 
as  has  been  stated  already,  there  may  have  been  neither 
time  nor  occasion  for  making  precedents  on  this  point. 
To  affirm  that  everything  for  which  there  cannot 
be  found  a  precedent  is  unconstitutional,  is  to  elevate 
precedent  above  the  Constitution,  and  to  deny  the  pos- 
sibility of  constitutional  reforms  or  changes. 

The  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  does  not 
regard  the  verdict  of  acquittal  in  the  lower  Judicatory 
as  a  completion  of  the  case,  in  the  sense  that  the  jeop- 
ardy ceases  with  such  acquittal.  An  accused  person 
has  never  been  in  jeopardy,  technically,  until  the  case 
reaches  Synod,  in  matters  of  ordinary  discipline,  or 
reaches  the  Assembly  in  cases  of  doctrine  and  Consti- 
tution. 

This  right  of  appeal  from  any  decision  of  an 
inferior  judicatory  by  any  of  the  parties  has  never  been 


242 

seriously  questioned.    It  has  been  uniformly  exercised. 

Under  the  Old  Book,  "a  party  aggrieved,"  and  all 

persons  who  have  submitted  to  a  regular  trial  in  an 

inferior,  may  appeal  to  a  higher  judicatory.    Any  one 

or  more  of  a  minority  jhad  the  right  to  appeal  from 

any  final  judgment  oftta  lower  to  a  higher  judicatory. 

Moore's    Digest,    1873,    p.    548,  says:      "Before  the 

'  adoption  of  the  Constitution  in  its  present  form, 

'  in  1821,  no  distinction  was  made  between  an  appeal 

'  and  complaint.     The  Common  form  was,  '  we  appeal 

1  and  complain.'     Under  this  broad  title  any  decision 

'  wJtatever  was  carried  by  any  parties  from  the  lower 

'  courts  to  the  higher.    Appeals  are  limited  by  the 

'  present  Constitution  to  the  original  parties  to  a  case 

'  who  may  deem  themselves  aggrieved,  and  to  cases 

'  which  have  been  judicially  decided  by  a  lower  judi- 

'  catory.     Under  this  head,  however,  are  included  all 

'  cases  of  whatever  character  which  have  been  the 

'  subject  of  a  decision  by  an  inferior  judicatory." 

The  assembly  of  1833  endorsed  the  principle  of  appeal 
from  a  sentence  of  acquittal,  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Griffith. 
(See  Moore's  Digest,  1873,  p.  548.) 

"The  Synod  of  New  York  decided  that  the  death  of 
"  Rev.  Mr.  Griffith  should  be  no  bar  in  the  way  of  the 
"  prosecution  of  an  appeal  by  his  prosecutor  from  the 
"  decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  Bedford,  acquitting 
"  Mr.  Griffith.  With  these  (this)  exceptions  (excep- 
"  tion)  the  Committee  recommended  that  the  Records 
"  be  approved.  Their  report  was  adopted.  Minutes 
"1833,  p.  400."     (Moore's  Digest,  1873,  p.  548.) 

In  the  case  last  referred  to  the  Synod  of  New  York 
decided  that  a  prosecutor  had  the  right  to  appeal  from 
the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  acquitting  the  accused, 
and  that  part  of  the  Synod' s  proceedings  the  Assembly 
of  1833  approved. 

A  well-known  Elder  of  our  Church,  when  recently 
discussing  this  question,  aptly  says:  "It  has  always 


243 

"  been  the  law  of  the  Church,  that  the  prosecutor,  at 
"  least  in  judicial  cases  involving  doctrine  and  consti- 
' '  tutional  law,  may  take  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of 
"  the  Court  in  which  the  case  originated,  to  the  Supe- 
"  rior  Courts,  although  the  decision  in  the  lower  Court 
"  may  have  acquitted  the  accused  of  the  charge  pre- 
"  f erred  against  him  ;  and  that  up  to  1821  any  one  or 
"  more  of  a  minority  had  the  right  to  appeal  from  any 
"  decision  whatever  of  a  lower  Court  to  a  higher.  Yet 
"  no  one  ever  claimed  or  imagined  until  now,  that 
"  there  was  the  slightest  injustice  in  this.  On  the  con- 
11  trary,  it  was  recognized  as  the  only  way  in  which 
"  doctrinal  and  constitutional  questions  could  be 
*  authoritatively  determined. 

"  In  view  of  these  facts  I  think  that  it  will  be  ad- 
"  mitted  that  the  right  of  a  prosecutor  to  appeal  to  a 
"  superior  Court  from  a  judgment  of  acquittal  in  an 
"  inferior  Court,  is  not  a  novelty,  an  innovation,  sought 
"  for  the  first  time  to  be  made  a  feature  of  our  Church 
"  discipline."  (Open  letter  of  William  Ernst,  Esq.,  to 
Prof.  Willis  J.  Beecher,  D.  D.,  in  the  "  Presbyterian," 
April,  1893.) 

An  Appeal  direct  from  the  Presbytery  to  the 
Assembly,  being  allowed  by  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  is  regular. 

This  is  not  the  ordinary,  but  the  extraordinary, 
mode  of  procedure,  and  is  to  be  taken  only  for  special 
reasons.  But  it  should  be  distinctly  noticed  that 
the  extraordinary  feature  does  not  render  it  irregular, 
since  the  Constitution  provides  for  it. 

Section  102  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  reads  :  "  Appeals 
"  are,  generally,  to  be  taken  to  the  judicatory  imme- 
"  diately  superior  to  that  appealed  from."  The  use  of 
the  word  "generally"  leaves  room  for  exceptional 
cases,  in  which  "the  judicatory  immediately  superior" 
may  be  passed  by  ;  and  this  is  no  novelty ;  it  was  not 


244 

introduced  by  those  who  remodelled  the  Book  ;  it  was 
in  the  old  Book ;  it  is  part  of  the  time-honored  practice 
of  our  church. 

According  to  Section  70  of  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
there  are  four  ways  in  which  a  cause  may  be  carried 
from  a  lower  to  a  higher  judicatory,  viz. :  General 
Review  and  Control,  Reference,  Complaint  and  Appeal. 
Sections  71  and  83  make  it  plain  that  Review  and 
Control  and  Complaints  must  invariably  be  by  or  to 
the  next  superior  judicatory. 

But  it  is  different  with  References  and  Appeals. 
Section  77  states  that  a  Reference  is  "made  by  an 
"  inferior  to  a  superior  judicatory,"  and  Section  94 
that  an  appeal  is  "  from  an  inferior  to  a  superior  judi- 
catory." In  both  cases  the  language  of  the  Book  care- 
fully refrains  from  naming  the  judicatory  next  supe- 
rior, as  in  the  case  of  Review  and  Control,  and  of 
Complaints.  The  next  superior  judicatory  may  or 
may  not  be  resorted  to  in  case  of  a  reference  or  an 
appeal. 

These  provisions  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  conform 
with  the  directions  of  the  Form  of  Government.  By 
Chapter  XI.,  Section  IV.,  of  the  Form  of  Government, 
the  Synod  is  debarred  from  giving  a  final  decision  on 
matters  which  affect  the  doctrine  and  constitution  of 
the  Church.  I  refer  to  this  here  particularly  for  the 
reason  that  an  overture  has  come  to  this  Assembly, 
from  some  of  the  Presbyteries,  in  which  the  Assembly 
is  urged  not  to  entertain  this  appeal,  as  that  would  be 
"  an  ignoring  of  that  important  body,  the  Synod,  and 
"  a  virtual  slight  upon  synodical  privileges  and 
"  dignity."  But  how  can  Synod  be  ignored,  or  its 
privileges  and  dignity  be  slighted  by  withholding  from 
it  a  matter  respecting  which  it  cannot  make  a  final 
decision  ?  The  appellants  have  disclaimed  any  intention 
to  ignore  the  Synod,  or  to  cast  a  slight  upon  its 
privileges  and  dignity. 


245 

The  rights,  privileges  and  dignity  of  the  Synod  of 
New  York  are  not  touched  in  any  way  by  direct  appeal 
to  the  Assembly,  since  neither  that  nor  any  other  Synod 
has  the  constitutional  power  to  settle  doctrinal  or  con- 
stitutional questions  for  the  whole  Church.  Besides, 
the  fact,  pointed  out  in  the  appeal,  that  all  but  one  of 
the  thirty-one  Presbyteries  of  the  Synod  of  New  York 
will  now,  in  the  Assembly,  have  a  voice  in  the  final 
settlement  of  these  questions,  should  have  due  consid- 
eration. In  no  other  way  can  the  Synod  of  New 
York  exert  so  large  an  influence  in  the  final  deter- 
mination of  this  matter. 

The  Constitution  (Form  of  Government,  Chapter  XI., 
Section  IV.),  in  express  terms  limits  the  powers  of  the 
Synod  by  providing  that  its  decision  shall  be  final, 
only,  in  cases  which  "do  not  affect  the  doctrine  or  con- 
stitution of  the  church."  Such  a  constitutional  limita- 
tion does  not  ignore  or  reflect  upon  the  dignity  of  the 
Synod. 

No  intelligent  man  would  claim  that  the  provisions 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  (Article  VII., 
Section  I.),  that  "All  bills  for  raising  revenue  shall 
originate  in  the  House  of  Representatives,"  is  a  reflec- 
tion upon  the  character  or  dignity  of  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States.  This  provision  was  made  so  as  to  carry 
out  consistently,  the  theory  upon  which  a  Constitution 
providing  for  a  complete  system  of  political  govern- 
ment was  based. 

So  this  constitutional  limitation  upon  the  power  of 
the  Synod,  not  to  make  final  decisions  upon  doctrinal 
and  constitutional  questions,  was  most  properly  made 
to  secure  a  consistent,  fair,  well-rounded  system  of 
ecclesiastical  government. 

If  time  permitted,  this  might  be  illustrated  in  many 
ways,  but  one  example  will  be  sufficient.  When  an 
effort  was  made  to  revise  the  Confession  of  Faith,  in 


246 

compliance  with  the  mandatory  provisions  of  the  Form 
of  Government  the  overtures  in  relation  to  the  pro- 
posed doctrinal  changes,  were  sent  down,  not  to  the 
Synods,  bat  to  the  Presbyteries,  and  the  answers  of  the 
Presbyteries  were  transmitted,  not  through  or  by  way 
of  the  Synods,  but  directly  to  the  General  Assembly. 

No  one  pretends  to  claim  that  such  a  constitutional 
proceeding  is  a  slight  upon  the  character  or  dignity 
of  the  Synods.  It  is  the  constitutional  method  of 
dealing  with  overtures  relating  to  doctrinal  changes. 

In  exactly  the  same  way  the  constitution  provides 
that  appeals  in  judicial  cases,  relating  to  doctrine, 
need  not  go  to  the  Synod,  but  may  go  directly  to  the 
General  Assembly. 

There  is  no  justification  in  fact  or  law,  for  the 
statements  which  have  been  made,  first,  that  this 
appeal  should  not,  as  a  matter  of  right,  be  brought 
directly  to  the  General  Assembly,  or,  second,  that  in 
acting  within  the  limits  of  constitutional  authority,  the 
Prosecuting  Committee,  representing  the  entire  Church, 
have  intentionally  ignored  the  powers  or  prerogatives, 
or  reflected  upon  the  character  and  dignity  of  the 
Synod  of  New  York. 

This  case,  as  such,  has  never  been  before  the  Synod  of 
New  York.  That  Synod  has  not  assumed  jurisdiction 
of  this  case.  All  that  it  has  ever  done  is  to  declare  in 
order,  two  certain  complaints  which  relate  to  collateral 
questions,  to  give  to  these  complaints  the  legal  effect 
claimed  for  them  by  the  Complainants  they  had  under 
Section  85  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  to  allege,  that  they 
were  not  taken  in  the  judicial  case,  although  they 
claimed,  as  soon  as  the  complaints  were  made,  that  the 
judicial  case  was  thereby  stayed. 

The  Synod  of  New  York  has  never  received  or  enter- 
tained, or  heard  in  its  official  capacity,  of  the  case  of 
The  Presbyterian  Church    in  the    United    States  of 


247 

America  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D. 
Consequently,  in  taking  this  Appeal  to  the  General 
Assembly,  there  is  no  intended  slight  to  the  Synod  of 
New  York  ;  there  is  nothing  that  could  be  reasonably 
construed  into  such  a  slight.  In  coming  to  the  General 
Assembly,  the  Appellant  is  doing  simply  what  the 
Constitution  says  it  may  do,  and  what,  as  representing 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States,  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  to  do.  The 
Committee  would  have  subjected  themselves,  very 
properly,  to  censure  from  this  body,  if  they  had  taken 
any  other  course.  If  this  Court  should,  in  its  wise  dis- 
cretion, think  that  this  matter  should  go  to  the  Synod, 
the  first  steps  toward  that  result  must  be  to  entertain 
this  appeal.  You  cannot  act  or  take  any  act  in  dis- 
posing of  this  matter  until  you  have  first  voted  to 
entertain  the  appeal.  Until  all  preliminary  and  juris- 
dictional questions  have  been  settled  and  jurisdiction 
has  been  assumed,  this  Court  cannot  make  any  order 
as  to  the  disposition  of  the  case.  When  you  have 
taken  the  vote  to  entertain  the  appeal,  then  the 
members  of  the  Court  should  consider  the  obligation 
placed  upon  them  by  the  Constitution  of  this  Church, 
to  dispose  of  this  case  in  such  manner  as  will  conserve 
the  truth  and  best  protect  the  interest  of  the  whole 
Church. 

As  Commissioners  to  this  General  Assembly  you 
are  under  very  solemn  obligations  and  responsibilities. 
You  have  not  come  here  to  act  in  obedience  to  special 
resolutions  of  your  respective  presbyteries,  if  any  such 
may  have  been  passed,  upon  questions  which  may 
come  before  this  General  Assembly. 

You  have  been  called  to  this  high  court  by  the  man- 
date of  the  Constitution  of  our  Church.  You  are  mem- 
bers of  a  supreme  Court  of  Commissioners,  each  member 
bearing,  not  a  resolution  of  instructions  as  to  how  he 


248 

shall  vote  upon  questions  arising  here,  but  which  have 
not  come  judicially  before  your  respective  Presbyteries. 

You  bear  a  solemn  commission  to  this  Assembly, 
which  by  its  express  terms  authorizes  and  directs  you 
"  to  consult,  vote,  and  determine  on  all  things  that  may 
"  come  before  that  body,  according  to  the  principles  and 
"  constitution  of  this  Church,  and  the  word  of  God," 
and  not  according  to  anything  else.  (Form  of  Govern- 
ment, Chapter  XXII.,  Section  II.  Minutes  1877, 
page  577). 

Section  XII.  of  the  Form  of  Government  directs 
that  "the  General  Assembly  shall  receive  and  issue  all 
"  appeals,  complaints,  and  references  that  affect  the 
"  doctrine  or  constitution  of  the  Church,  which  may 
"  be  regularly  brought  before  them  from  the  inferior 
"  judicatories,  *  *  *  and  they  shall  constitute 
**  the  bond  of  union,  peace,  correspondence  and  mu- 
"  tual  confidence  among  all  our  churches."  Accord- 
ing to  Section  V.  of  the  same  Chapter,  "To  the 
"  General  Assembly  also  belongs  the  power  of  deciding 
"  in  all  controversies  respecting  doctrine  and  disci- 
"  pline  ;  of  reproving,  warning,  or  bearing  testimony 
"  against  error  in  doctrine ;  *  *  *  of  suppressing 
i(  schismatical  contentions  and  disputations;  *  *  and 
"  the  promotion  of  charity,  truth  and  holiness,  through 
"  all  the  churches  under  their  care."  The  constitution 
puts  especial  responsibility  on  the  General  Assembly, 
respecting  all  matters  which  affect  the  doctrine,  dis- 
cipline, the  purity  and  peace  of  the  Church. 

It  is  very  evident  then,  that  the  framers  of  our  Book 
of  Discipline  and  of  the  Form  of  Government,  inten- 
tionally left  the  way  open  for  passing  the  intermediate 
judicatories,  so  that  cases  affecting  the  doctrine  and 
constitution  of  the  Church,  might  be  taken  directly 
to  the  Assembly,  if  such  a  course  seemed  necessary. 
When,  therefore,  we  come  to  the  Assembly  with  our 


249 

appeal  we  are  following  the  constitutional  method  of 
procedure,  for  which  precedents  are  not  wanting. 

The  General  Assembly  of  1824,  in  answer  to  a  peti- 
tion of  certain  members  of  the  Tammany  Street  Church 
of  Baltimore,  stated  :  "  It  is  unquestionably  the  priv- 
"  ilege  of  individuals  and  members  of  the  Presbyterian 
4 '  Church,  when  they  think  they  see  the  peace,  purity, 
11  or  prosperity  of  the  Church  in  danger,  either  from  an 
u  individual,  or  from  an  inferior  court,  to  apply  to  the 
"  General  Assembly,  in  an  orderly  manner,  for  redress 
"  and  direction."     (Minutes  1824,  p.  113.) 

The  Assembly  of  1833  (Minutes  1833,  p.  396),  re- 
sponding to  an  overture  from  the  Presbytery  of  Bal- 
timore in  reference  to  the  practice  of  inferior  judica- 
tories in  carrying  appeals  and  complaints  directly  to 
the  Assembly,  adopted  the  following  resolution : 
"That  the  constitution  of  our  Church  is  so  explicit  that 
*'  it  requires  no  order  of  the  Assembly  in  relation  to 
"  the  case  brought  to  view  in  this  overture."  Dr. 
Moore,  in  the  Presbyterian  Digest,  1886,  p.  740,  states 
in  reference  to  this  deliverance,  that  "the  principle 
"guiding  the  Assembly  seems  to  be  that  where  there 
"  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  passing  the  next  superior 
"court,  the  case  should  go  there.  But  where  good 
"reasons  for  carrying  it  directly  to  the  Assembly  are 
"assigned,  it  will  be  entertained." 

The  uniform  practice  of  the  General  Assembly,  in 
judicial  cases,  has  been  to  receive  appeal  coming  to  it 
without  first  going  to  Synod,  if  good  reasons  were 
adduced. 

1.  The  Assembly  of  1816  (Minutes  1816,  p.  626) 
thought  it  reasonable  to  receive  the  appeal  of  the  Rev. 
George  Bourne  from  the  Presbytery  of  Lexington,  on 
the  ground  that  he  preferred  to  be  tried  by  the  Assem- 
bly rather  than  by  the  Synod  (Baird,  p.  166).  And  the 
Assembly  of  1818  refused  to  approve  the  minutes  of  the 


250 

Synod  of  Virginia  expressing  censure  on  the  Presbytery 
of  Lexington  for  allowing  the  appeal  of  Mr.  Bourne  to 
pass  the  Synod.    (See  Baird,  p.  152.) 

2.  In  the  Assembly  of  1883  (Minutes  1883,  p.  617) 
the  Judicial  Committee  reported  that  since  the  Rev. 
W.  W.  McLane  had  not  given  sufficient  reasons  for 
coming  direct  to  the  Assembly  with  his  appeal  from 
the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  Steubenville,  the 
case  and  the  papers  pertaining  to  it  be  referred  to  the 
Synod  of  Ohio  ;  but  the  Assembly  declined  to  adopt 
the  report,  and  returned  it  to  the  Judicial  Committee 
with  instruction  "to  prepare  and  issue  the  case  before 
the  Assembly."  (Moore's  Presbyterian  Digest,  1886, 
p.  741.) 

3.  The  Assembly  of  1884  stated,  in  reference  to  the 
appeal  of  the  Rev.  Jared  M.  Chavis,  from  the  Presbytery 
of  Atlantic,  "  that  the  appellant  has  shown  a  sufficient 
reason  for  bringing  his  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly, 
without  first  going  to  the  Synod  of  Atlantic."  They 
reversed  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery,  and  then,  since 
no  testimony  had  been  taken  by  the  Presbytery, 
referred  the  case  to  the  Synod,  with  instructions  to 
take  the  proper  action  in  the  premises.  (Minutes  1884, 
p.  108.) 

I  call  attention  to  this  citation,  as  it  is,  I  believe,  the 
only  judicial  case,  since  the  revision  of  our  Book  of 
Discipline,  which  has  been  sent  down  by  the  Assembly 
to  Synod.  This  exceptional  action  strongly  confirms, 
if  it  does  not  completely  establish,  our  position,  that 
a  judicial  case  involving  doctrine  cannot  be  sent  down 
by  the  Assembly  to  Synod. 

The  charges  in  the  Chavis  case  were  for  alleged  im- 
morality— a  case  in  which  the  decision  of  Synod  is  finaL 
In  that  case  the  Presbytery  had  failed  in  its  duty  as  a 
trial  court.  The  appeal  disclosed  such  irregularities  in 
the  matter  of  discipline  that  the  General  Assembly 


251 

sent  a  special  committee  to  visit  the  Presbytery  of 
Atlantic,  to  investigate  and  do  anything  in  its  power  to 
correct  the  same.  The  Minutes  of  the  Assembly  (1884, 
p.  108)  declare  "that  the  appellant  had  shown  a  suffi- 
cient reason  for  bringing  his  appeal  to  the  General 
Assembly  without  first  going  to  the  Synod  of  Atlantic." 
But  as  the  Form  of  Government  makes  the  decision  of 
the  Synod  final  in  all  such  cases,  the  Chavis  case  was 
returned  to  the  Synod  lor  action,  as  should  have  been 
done  in  a  case  involving  moral  and  not  doctrinal  ques- 
tions. 

If  this  case  should  be  referred  by  this  Assembly,  to 
the  Synod  of  New  York,  and  the  majority  of  that 
Synod  should  be  unwilling  to  take  up  and  give  full 
consideration  to  it,  they  might  be  ready  to  listen  to  the 
technical  objection  that  the  Synod  would  have  no 
authority  to  hear  the  case,  upon  the  ground  that  the 
right  of  appeal  to  Synod  had  been  lost,  because  notice 
of  appeal  had  not  been  given  within  the  ten  days 
fixed  by  Section  96  of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  final  adjudication  of 
the  case  would  be  deferred  for  two  years,  because  a 
complaint  against  the  actions  of  Synod  on  this  purely 
technical  ground  would  have  to  be  settled  by  the  next 
Assembly,  the  case  again  returned  to  Synod,  and  the 
appeal  from  Synod' s  decision  would  come  before  the 
Assembly  two  years  hence. 

I  only  make  this  as  a  suggestion  as  to  what  is  likely 
to  happen  in  case  this  Venerable  Body  should,  for  any 
reason,  take  a  course  which  I  hope  I  have  convinced 
the  Commissioners  is  not  warranted  by  the  facts  or 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  Church. 

4.  In  the  New  School  Assembly  of  1839  a  motion  to 
send  the  appeal  of  Mr.  Lewis  Tappan  from  the  Third 
Presbytery  of  New  York  to  the  Synod,  was  lost,  and 
the  appeal  was  then  entertained  and  issued.  (Moore's 
Digest,  1st  Ed.,  p.  225.) 


252 

These  examples  sufficiently  indicate  what  the  practice 
of  the  Assembly  has  been  with  regard  to  entertaining 
appeals  which  have  come  to  them  without  having  first 
been  before  the  Synod.  Whenever  appellants  have 
given  good  reasons,  the  Assembly  has  received  the 
appeal. 

The  contention  that,  while  an  appeal  of  the  defendant 
may  thus  be  received  for  special  reasons,  no  such 
privilege  can  be  accorded  to  that  of  a  prosecutor,  intro- 
duces a  distinction  which  is  not  recognized  by  the 
constitution  of  the  Church.  The  right  of  appeal  is 
secured  to  both  of  the  original  parties  without  distinc- 
tion. We  have  already  shown  that  in  a  trial  for 
heresy  the  Church  has  far  greater  interests  at  stake 
than  any  defendant  can  possibly  have,  and  is  liable  to 
suffer  vastly  more  from  delay  than  he.  The  Presby- 
terian Church  has  an  equal  right,  with  the  humblest  as 
well  as  with  the  most  distinguished  of  its  members,  to 
make  use  of  all  constitutional  provisions  for  the  preser- 
vation of  its  interests. 

There  are  special  reasons  why  this  appeal 
should  be  received  by  the  assembly  with- 
out having  first  been  taken  to  the  synod 
of  New  York. 

In  addition  to  the  reasons  set  out  in  the  appeal,  the 
following  may  be  stated  : 

1.  The  appeal  relates  to  doctrines  which  are  abso- 
lutely fundamental  to  our  system. 

The  attempt  to  convince  the  Church  that  the  doc- 
trines at  stake  are  non-essential  or  unimportant,  and 
that  the  contention  about  them  is  but  a  "strife  of 
"  tongues,"  has  not  been  successful.  The  Christian 
world,  and  especially  the  people  of  our  own  com- 
munion, very  largely  consider  them  vital.  From  the 
time  when  Dr.  Briggs  delivered  his  Inaugural  Address 
until  now,  a  strong  conviction  in  all  parts  of  our  Church 


253 

has  been  growing  stronger  that  his  blow  struck  at  fun- 
damental doctrines. 

The  sole  supremacy  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  mat- 
ters of  faith,  the  veracity,  genuineness  and  trustwor- 
thiness of  that  Scripture,  and  the  question  whether 
the  process  of  redemption  is  limited  to  this  life,  or  is 
to  be  extended  to  the  world  beyond  the  grave,  are  in- 
volved in  this  discussion.  These  are  considered  vitally 
important  by  evangelical  Protestants,  and  particularly 
by  Presbyterians,  since  they  concern  not  only  our 
creed,  but  also  our  entire  method  of  presenting  the 
Gospel.  The  publication  of  Dr.  Briggs'  views  has 
given  rise  to  widespread  alarm  and  contention.  It  is 
the  duty  of  the  Assembly  to  receive  and  issue  this 
appeal  for  the  sake  of  the  purity  and  peace  of  the 
Church. 

No  Presbytery  or  Synod  can  settle  these  doctrines  for 
the  Presbyterian  Church;  the  Assembly  alone  rep- 
resents that  Church ;  it  is  the  only  court  to  which 
this  appeal  should  come.  Since  the  Assembly  is  not 
a  court  of  original  jurisdiction,  it  was  necessary  that 
the  matter  should  first  be  passed  on  by  such  a  court ; 
but  now,  since  it  has  been  tried  by  a  court  of  original 
jurisdiction,  there  is  no  reason  why  it  should  be  sent 
to  another  inferior  judicatory  which,  under  the  Con- 
stitution, cannot  render  a  final  decision. 

2.  The  case  is  fully  ripe  for  final  judgment  by  this 
Assembly.  If  the  Commissioners  were  not  acquainted 
with  the  merits  of  the  case,  there  might  be  reason  for 
delay.  But,  aside  from  the  fact  that  the  questions 
involved  have  been  before  the  Church  for  more  than 
two  years,  and  have  been  discussed  both  by  the  secular 
and  the  religious  press,  the  Defence  of  Dr.  Briggs  and 
the  Arguments  of  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  have 
been  put  into  the  hands  of  all  of  our  ministers,  and  of 
many  of  our  elders  ;  there  is  good  reason  for  concluding 
that  the  brethren  are  well  informed  on  the  subjects 


254 

involved  in  the  case.  Like  the  children  of  Issachar, 
the  members  of  this  Assembly  have  "understanding 
"  of  the  times,  to  know  what  Israel  ought  to  do." 

3.  It  is  imperatively  necessary  that  a  final  decision 
in  this  case  be  reached  at  the  earliest  possible  date. 
This  is  requisite  alike  for  the  purity  and  peace,  and 
the  prosperity  and  usefulness  of  the  Church.  Debate, 
contention,  and  uncertainty  should  not  be  protracted 
any  longer  than  is  absolutely  necessary.  Only  a  little 
while  ago,  all  seemed  to  be  agreed,  respecting  this 
matter. 

Not  a  few  of  those  urging  the  now  famous  "peace 
and  work"  plea  were  so  deeply  impressed  with  the 
fact  that  this  conflict  interferes  seriously  with  the  peace 
and  work  of  our  churches,  that  they  desired  the  mat- 
ter to  be  dropped  immediately  after  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York  had  rendered  its  decision  in  this  case. 

We  did  not  agree  with  them  in  detail,  believing  that 
it  would  be  better  to  wait  four  months  longer,  bring 
the  case  to  this  Assembly,  and  obtain  a  decision  which 
would  be  more  potential  in  allaying  the  unrest  and 
disquiet  of  our  people  than  that  of  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  could  possibly  be. 

But  we  agree  with  them  as  to  the  necessity  of  dis- 
posing of  this  matter  finally  and  authoritatively  as 
soon  as  possible ;  and  since  the  Assembly  alone  can 
render  a  final  and  authoritative  decision  on  questions 
of  this  kind,  we  ask  it  to  render  that  decision  here,  and 
at  this  time. 

Consistency  is  not  the  distinctive  quality  of  those 
brethren,  who  less  than  four  months  ago  insisted  with 
intense  earnestness  that,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  work 
and  liberty,  the  discussion  should  cease  at  once.  They 
now  insist  with  a  zeal  no  less  earnest,  that,  to  guard  the 
interests  of  our  beloved  Church,  the  case  should  be 
delayed  another  year,  and  first  be  sent  to  the  Synod 


255 

of  New  York.  If  their  judgment  of  four  months  ago 
was  correct,  then  their  present  judgment  cannot  be, 
for  no  evident  change  of  sentiment  in  either  Church 
or  defendant  has  taken  place  since  that  time. 

But  why  this  determined  purpose  to  keep  this  case 
from  coming  before  the  General  Assembly,  and  to  send  it 
to  the  Synod  %  There  would  be  reason  in  this  were  it  a 
case  respecting  morality,  for  then  the  Synod  would 
have  the  constitutional  right  to  make  a  final  decision. 
It  cannot  do  so  in  this  case,  since  it  involves  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church,  which  the  Assembly  only 
can  finally  decide.  This  shows  that  there  is  no 
desire,  on  the  part  of  those  just  referred  to,  to 
secure  a  settlement  of  the  matter  at  issue  by  the 
only  body  which  constitutionally  can  settle  it  for  the 
Church.  The  prerogatives  and  privileges  of  our  judi- 
catories have  been  mentioned  ;  but  the  court,  whose 
prerogatives,  privileges  and  dignity  have  been  attacked 
in  connection  with  this  case,  is  not  the  Synod  of  New 
York,  but  the  General  Assembly  itself. 

So  earnest  is  the  attempt  to  keep  this  case  from  com- 
ing before  the  Assembly  for  decision,  that  the  disrup- 
tion of  the  Church  is  threatened  if  the  Assembly 
should  entertain  and  issue  it.  But  this  threat  argues 
on  the  one  hand,  conscious  weakness  on  the  part  of 
those  who  make  it,  and  on  the  other,  a  deliberate  in- 
tention to  unduly  influence  the  Assembly  so  as  to 
prevent  it  from  giving  an  honest  expression  of  opinion. 

A  wise  and  manly  settlement  of  this  case  by  the  As- 
sembly will  purify  and  strengthen  our  Church  and  be 
the  beginning  of  a  long  period  of  peace  and  prosperity. 

4.  This  case  involves  the  legal  construction  of  the 
ordination  vow  of  everj^  minister,  elder  and  deacon  in 
our  Church ;  it  involves  what  they  may  believe  and 
teach  as  the  faith  of  the  Church,  under  the  terms  of 
that  vow.    The  Presbytery  of  New  York  has  decided 


256 

in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs  that  a  Presbyterian  minister, 
elder  or  deacon  may  believe  and  teach,  in  harmony 
with  that  vow,  certain  doctrines.  The  Presbytery  of 
Cincinnati  has  held  in  the  case  of  Dr.  H.  S.  Smith  that 
certain  of  these  views  cannot  be  tanght  without  a 
violation  of  the  ordination  vow.  What  the  faith  of 
the  Church,  as  to  the  fundamental  doctrines  involved  in 
this  case,  is,  and  what  is  embraced  within  the  terms  of 
the  ordination  vow,  and  the  liberty  in  teaching  allowed 
by  the  Church,  can  only  be  determined  by  the  General 
Assembly. 

The  importance  of  an  immediate  decision  of  these 
matters  will  be  recognized  at  once,  when  we  con- 
sider that  during  the  coming  year  at  least  two 
hundred  and  fifty  ministers  will  be  received  into  our 
Church  and  from  three  to  five  thousand  elders  and 
deacons  elected  and  ordained.  Those  ministers,  elders 
and  deacons  who  take  the  ordination  vow,  according 
to  the  decision  of  the  New  York  Presbytery  in  this 
case,  have  a  right  to  believe,  until  that  decision  is 
reversed,  that  they  can  hold  the  views  of  Dr.  Briggs 
and  teach  them  without  transgressing  the  limits  of 
liberty  allowed  under  our  Constitution  to  scholarship 
and  opinion. 

Is  it  fair  or  just  to  leave  the  terms  of  the  ordination 
vow  and  the  doctrines  involved  in  this  case,  unsettled 
for  another  year,  for  this  would  be  the  result  of  not 
entertaining  the  appeal  or,  after  it  has  been  entertained, 
sending  it  to  the  Synod  ?  Would  it  be  right  or  honest 
to  permit  ministers,  elders  and  deacons  to  enter  the 
Church  during  the  next  year,  believing,  as  they  would 
have  a  right  to  believe,  with  the  judgment  of  the  New 
York  Presbytery  unreversed,  that,  under  the  terms  of 
their  ordination  vow,  they  can  believe  and  teach  the 
views  held  by  Dr.  Briggs  I  Then,  in  case  the  Assembly 
of  1894  should  reverse  the  judgment  of  New  York 
Presbytery,  it  would  place  those  who  have  become 


257 

ministers,  elders  and  deacons  in  the  position  of  being 
compelled  either  to  renounce  their  views,  or  to  retire 
from  the  Church,  or  subject  themselves  to  discipline  to 
expel  them  from  the  Church. 

The  Church,  in  all  its  agencies,  must  go  on,  it  must 
license  more  ministers,  elect  and  ordain  more  elders 
and  deacons.  If  no  other  consideration  existed  than 
this,  it  would  be  of  paramount  importance.  Fairness 
and  justice  to  those  whom  the  Church  invites  into 
official  station  would  seem  to  require  this  Judicatory 
to  entertain  this  appeal  and  determine  what  the  Church 
holds  upon  the  fundamental  questions  at  issue. 

5.  As  a  final  reason  why  the  Assembly  should  enter- 
tain this  appeal  now,  we  urge  that  great  and  wide- 
spread injury  is  certain  to  come  from  protracted  delay. 
It  will  tend  to  unsettle  faith,  especially  among  our 
young  people ;  it  will  injuriously  affect  the  train- 
ing of  our  young  men  for  the  ministry,  and  will  result 
in  the  spread  of  false  doctrines. 

The  Presbytery  of  New  York,  in  the  final  judgment, 
says:  "There  are  truths  and  forms  with  regard  to 
"which  men  of  good  character  may  differ."  No  one 
disputes  that.  But  the  statement  necessarily  implies 
that  there  are  also  truths  and  forms  in  regard  to  which 
good  men,  especially  ministers  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  should  not  differ ;  and  the  question  is 
whether  or  not  the  truths  and  forms  contained  in  this 
case  are  of  that  kind.  The  great  majority  of  Presby- 
terians believe  that  they  are.  The  verdict  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York  confirms  that  belief  rather  than 
otherwise ;  for,  while  they  acquit  him,  they  distinctly 
disapprove  the  critical  and  theological  views  of  Dr. 
Briggs,  for  which  he  has  been  put  on  the  defence. 
Why  disapprove  these  truths  and  forms  if  Presby- 
terian Ministers  and  elders  may  differ  in  regard  to 
them  % 


258 

If  the  doctrines  presented  by  Prof.  Briggs  be  errone- 
ous, as  we  verily  believe,  then,  through  delay,  ' '  heret- 
ical opinions"  are  sure  to  "gain  ground,"  and  our 
Church  will  be  affected  injuriously  through  the  con- 
tinuance of  uncertainty  and  doubt,  and  of  suspicion 
and  strife. 

In  closing,  Moderator,  let  me  thank  you  and  the 
General  Assembly  for  your  indulgent  attention  to  this 
long  and  sometimes  technical  argument.  The  laws  of 
our  Book  may  be  imperfect,  for  they  are  human  laws ; 
our  interpretation  of  the  law  may  be  defective,  because 
it  is  a  human  interpretation ;  but  these  laws  and  their 
interpreters  may  be  the  means  of  advancing  the  King- 
dom of  God.  And,  having  been  faithful  to  the  rights 
and  laws  of  His  Church  on  earth,  you  shall  doubtless 
see  the  effects  of  this  fidelity  in  that  heavenly  empire, 
the  realm  of  glory,  to  which  He  will  one  day  summon 
His  elect. 


259 

VII. 


Preliminary  Statement  of  Mr.  McCook,  of  the 
Prosecuting  Committee,  as  to  Procedure  and 
Designating  the  Portions  of  the  Record  to  be 
used  by  the  appellant  during  the  argument 
of  the  Appeal. 


Moderator,  Fathers  and  Brethren  : 

Upon  the  suggestion  of  the  Judicial  Committee,  and 
with  the  assent  of  the  parties,  it  has  been  arranged 
that  the  Appellant  shall  present,  in  the  opening  argu- 
ment, its  entire  case,  with  citation  of  authorities,  and 
reference  to  so  much  of  the  record  as  it  relies  upon  to 
sustain  the  same. 

The  Appellant  gladly  acts  upon  this  suggestion  of 
the  Judicial  Committee,  as  it  is  likely,  in  this  case,  to 
save  the  time  of  the  Assembly.  This  procedure  is, 
however,  contrary  to  that  which  has,  so  far  as  I  can 
learn,  always  been  followed  in  ecclesiastical  courts, 
where  the  Appellant  has  been  permitted  to  dispose  of 
his  time  and  present  his  case,  opening  and  closing  his 
argument,  in  the  manner  which  commends  itself  to  his 
best  judgment,  being  restricted  only  by  the  limit  of 
time  fixed  by  the  Court. 

This  practice  has  always  been  followed,  so  far  as  I 
can  learn,  under  our  Book  of  Discipline,  wherein  Sec. 
99  provides  in  Subsection  2  that  "The  parties  shall  be 
heard,  the  Appellant  opening  and  closing." 

In  assenting  to  this  suggestion  of  the  Judicial  Com- 
mittee, the  Appellant,  to  prevent  the  establishment  of 
a  precedent  which  might  work  to  the  disadvantage  of 
parties  in  other  cases  of  appeal,  and  especially  where 
the  Church  at  large,  as  in  this  case,  is  the  Appellant, 
calls  attention  to  the  matter,  now  and  in  this  public 


260 

manner,  so  that  the  facts  may  appear  upon  the  Steno- 
graphic Record  of  the  judicial  proceedings,  showing  its 
exceptional  character,  and  so  that  a  stipulation  or 
consent  of  parties  as  to  the  order  of  procedure,  in  a 
single  case,  should  not  be  quoted  as  authority  or  as 
establishing  a  precedent,  contrary  to  the  direct,  affirma- 
tive, constitutional  right  of  Appellants  under  Section 
99  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  to  open  and  close  the 
argument  on  appeal,  and  to  present  the  same  as  they 
may  think  best. 

So  as  not  to  break  in  upon  or  interfere  with  Dr. 
Lampe's  opening  argument,  I  will  now  cite,  as  briefly 
as  possible,  the  authorities  and  so  much  of  the  record 
as  will  be  used  by  the  Appellant  in  its  arguments  to 
support  the  Appeal  and  the  specifications  of  error 
alleged. 

To  give  full  information  to  the  Appellee  as  to  the 
portion  of  the  evidence  and  of  the  record  in  the  case, 
to  be  used  by  the  Appellant,  and  to  save  the  time  of 
the  Court,  as  far  as  possible,  reference  will  be  made  to 
the  books  submitted  in  evidence,  by  title  and  also  to 
the  volumes  and  pages  used,  but  the  extracts  therefrom 
will  not  be  read  to  the  Court,  unless  it  appears  neces- 
sary or  advisable  to  the  Appellant  to  do  so. 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  has  prepared  and  placed 
in  the  hands  of  the  Commissioners,  for  their  information, 
a  printed  document  containing  a  copy,  certified  by  the 
Stated  Clerk  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  of  the 
final  judgment,  notice  of  Appeal  and  of  the  Appeal  to 
the  General  Assembly,  with  the  specifications  of  error 
alleged,  together  with  a  record  of  all  proceedings  had 
in  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  as  shown  by  the  minutes 
of  that  judicatory  during  the  trial  of  the  case. 

Upon  pages  86,  88  and  89  of  the  printed  document 
(pages  92,  9±  and  95  of  this  volume)  will  be  found 
reference  to  the  evidence  introduced,  at  the  trial,  by  the 
Appellant.    On  pages  89,  90,  91,  92  and  93  (pages  95  to 


261 

99  of  this  volume)  will  be  found  reference  to  the  evi- 
dence introduced  by  the  Appellee,  all  of  which  having 
been  received  as  competent  evidence  by  the  lower  Court 
may  be  referred  to  and  used  by  the  parties  in  the 
argument  of  this  Appeal. 

When  sitting  as  a  judicatory  in  a  judicial  case,  the 
members  of  the  Court  are  charged  with  judicial  knowl- 
edge of  the  contents  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  theUnited  States  of  America,  consisting 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Larger  and  Shorter 
Catechisms,  the  Form  of  Government,  the  Book  of 
Discipline  and  Directory  for  Worship,  a  copy  of  which 
was  introduced  in  evidence,  in  the  Court  below,  by  the 
Appellant,  marked  F. 

The  members  of  the  Court  are  also  charged  with  ju- 
dicial knowledge  of  the  contents  of  the  Holy  Bible,  a 
copy  of  which  was  introduced  in  evidence,  in  the  Court 
below,  by  the  Appellant,  marked  G,  and  any  portions 
of  the  Bible  and  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  may  be  quoted,  referred  to  and  used  by  the 
Appellant,  without  any  previous  designation  of  the 
part  or  parts  thereof  to  be  so  used. 

The  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly,  being  a  public 
document  and  an  official  record  of  the  Church,  the 
Court  must  also  take  judicial  knowledge  of  the  contents 
thereof,  and  the  Appellant  proposes  to  use  portions  of 
pages  57  and  235  of  the  Minutes  of  the  General  As- 
sembly of  1892. 

Use  will  also  be  made,  as  a  part  of  the  record  in  this 
case,  of  portions  of  the  original  Charges  and  Specifi- 
cations in  this  case,  presented  to  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York  on  the  5th  day  of  October,  1891,  and  of  all 
or  any  part  of  the  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications 
(pages  44  to  73  of  the  printed  document,  pages  50  to  79 
of  this  volume)  presented  to  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  on  the  9th  day  of  November,  1892,  including  the 
quotations  from  the  Inaugural  Address  and  the  cita- 


262 

tions  of  proofs  from  Scripture,  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms. 

The  Appellant  will  also  refer  to  or  use  the  final 
judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  entered  on 
the  9th  day  of  January,  1893,  the  Notice  of  Appeal, 
the  Appeal  and  the  Specifications  of  Error  alleged,  all 
of  which  have  already  been  read  to  the  Court  and  will 
be  found  in  the  printed  document  at  pages  3  to  34 
inclusive.     (Pages  11  to  42  of  this  volume.) 

The  Appellant  will  also  refer  to  or  use  the  following 
pages,  or  parts  thereof,  of  the  Minutes  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  York :  Vol.  14,  pages  227,  228,  265,  276, 
285,  286,  291,  292,  294,  303-305,  310,  313,  319,  355,  356, 
361,  378,  384,  385,  395,  396,  397  and  500  et  sequitur. 

The  Appellant  will  also  refer  to  or  use  the  following 
pages,  or  parts  thereof,  of  the  Stenographic  Report  of 
the  trial  in  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  from  Novem- 
ber 9th,  1892,  to  January  9th,  1893,  as  follows  :  Pages 
121,  122,  123,  148,  187,  188,  405,  411,  451  et  sequitur, 
470-472,  475,  476,  477,  478,  784,  900,  993,  1009,  1010, 
1028-9,  1035,  1036-1038,  1153,  1174,  1210,  1212,  1214, 
1225,  1228,  1341,  1343-1351. 

The  Apellant  will  also  refer  to  or  use  the  preface  to 
Dr.  Briggs'  Inaugural  Address,  Third  Edition,  with 
the  Appendix  thereto,  and  the  whole  or  parts  of  the 
following  pages  thereof :  25,  26,  27,  31,  32,  33,  34,  35, 
41,  53,  55,  88,  89,  103,  104,  105,  106,  107,  147. 

The  Appellant  will  also  refer  to  or  use  the  following 
works  of  Dr.  Briggs  : 

Whither,  pages  xi.,  211,  221. 

Biblical  Study,  pages  161,  243. 

Who  Wrote  the  Pentateuch  I  pages  23, 25,  28,  29, 75, 
79,  101,  106,  124,  157, 158,  159,  162. 

Who  Wrote  Isaiah  ?  pages  135, 137,  138. 


263 

Dr.  Briggs'  article  in  the  Presbyterian  Review  for 
April,  1884,  page  384. 

Dr.  Briggs'  article  in  the  Andover  Review,  volume 
13,  page  59. 

The  Appellant  will  also  refer  to  or  nse  in  their  argu- 
ments portions  of  pages  1  and  4  of  Newman' s  Apologia 
Pro  Vita  Sua,  in  the  volume  submitted  in  evidence,  in 
the  Court  below,  by  the  Appellant,  marked  D. 

The  Appellant  will  also  refer  to  or  use  portions  of 
Book  I.,  Chapters  1  and  2 ;  Book  II.,  Chapter  2,  and 
Book  IV.,  Chapter  2,  of  Martineau's  Seat  of  Authority 
in  Religion,  in  the  volume  introduced  in  evidence,  in 
the  Court  below,  by  the  Appellant,  marked  E. 

The  Appellant  will  also  refer  to  or  use  Kuenen's 
Prophets  and  Prophecies  in  Israel,  1877,  pages  448,  449. 

I  shall  not  take  the  time  of  the  Court  to  read  any  of 
the  citations  at  this  time,  but  they  may  be  read  and 
will  be  referred  to  by  the  Prosecuting  Committee, 
representing  the  Appellant,  from  time  to  time  during 
the  arguments. 

Dr.  Lampe  will  now  present  the  Appellant' s  opening 
argument. 


264 


VIII. 

Argument  of  the  Rev.  Joseph  J.  Lampe,  D.  D.,  a 
Member  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  on  the 
Merits  and  in  Favor  of  Sustaining  the  Appeal. 


Mr.  Moderator,  Fathers  and  Brethren  : 

In  accordance  with  Section  95  of  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
the  Appellants  assign  five  grounds  of  appeal,  viz.  :  Irreg- 
ularity in  the  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  ; 
receiving  improper,  and  declining  to  receive  important 
testimony;  manifestation  of  prejudice  in  the  conduct  of 
the  case  ;  and  mistake  or  injustice  in  the  decision. 

Some  of  the  specifications  under  these  grounds  have 
reference  only  to  the  order  of  procedure.  Your  attention 
is  called  to  them  for  the  reason  that  errors  of  procedure 
should  not  be  allowed  to  become  precedents  for  future 
cases. 

1  st.  The  first  ground  is  that  of  irregularity  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  lower  judicatory. 

1.  The  first  important  error  was  the  rejection  of 
Charges  4  and  7  of  the  amended  form  ;  for  if  these  charges 
were  essential  parts  of  the  original  charges,  sent  down 


265 

by  the  General  Assembly  of  1892  to  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York,  to  be  tried  on  the  merits  thereof,  and,  if  Dr. 
Briggs  has  really  not  disavowed  the  serious  errors  charged 
against  him  in  them,  then  it  was  irregular  for  the  Presby- 
tery to  order  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  to  strike  them 
out,  and  the  Appellants  were  in  duty  bound  to  bring  them 
here,  as  has  been  done  in  the  first  and  second  specifica- 
tions under  the  first  ground  of  appeal. 

Two  principal  objections  were  made  to  these  charges  : 
1.  That  they  were  new  charges.  2.  That  the  defendant 
had  disclaimed  the  teaching  with  which  these  charges 
were  concerned. 

The  substance  of  Charge  4  was  originally  a  specification 
under  the  first  of  the  original  charges  (Spec.  7).  It 
was  objected  to  as  being  vague  and  indefinite,  and,  in 
accordance  with  Dr.  Briggs'  own  criticisms,  it  was  made 
definite.  It  was  objected  that  it  did  not  charge  the  con- 
travening of  any  essential  doctrine,  and  so  an  explanatory 
clause  was  added  to  show  the  essential  character  of  the 
doctrine  which  had  been  contravened. 

The  7th  specification  of  the  original  first  charge  accused 
Dr.  Briggs  of  teaching  that  much  of  predictive  prophecy 
had  been  reversed  by  history,  and  that  many  predictions 
had  not  been  and  could  not  be  fulfilled.  Charge  4  is  more 
specific.  It  relates  principally  to  Messianic  prophecy. 
It  refers  to  the  exact  words  of  Dr.  Briggs.  The  general 
nature  so  far  is  not  changed  ;  the  general  nature  of  Specifi- 
cation 7  was  predictive  prophecy,  and,  as  Messianic  proph- 


266 

ecy  is  a  species  of  predictive  prophecy,  it  is  not  chang- 
ing the  general  nature  to  raise  the  question  of  the  species 
instead  of  the  question  of  predictive  prophecy  generally. 

But  objection  was  made  to  the  explanatory  clause  in 
the  4th  amended  charge.  Does  this  make  the  charge 
new  ?     If  so,  then  one  must  ask  this  question  : 

Why  is  it  an  offence  to  deny  the  fulfillment  of  the  great 
body  of  Messianic  prediction  ?  Well,  your  answer  may 
be  either  (a)  Because  the  word  of  God  is  infallible,  in 
which  case  you  assume  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible  as  the 
ground  for  belief  in  the  Messianic  prophecy,  or  (b) 
Because  of  the  attributes  of  God.  Dr.  Briggs  affirms  that 
the  great  body  of  Messianic  prediction  not  only  has  not 
been  fulfilled  but  cannot  be  fulfilled.  If  that  be  the 
correct  view,  it  must  be  asked,  What  is  to  be  thought  of 
Him  who  inspires  a  false  prophecy,  and  of  the  words  of 
Jesus  Himself  that  all  things  must  be  fulfilled  ?  Inasmuch 
as  Dr.  Briggs  had  denied  the  truthfulness  of  Scripture, 
and  yet  had  admitted  its  Inspiration,  the  only  possible 
essential  reason  which  could  be  adduced  for  the  doctrine 
of  the  fulfillment  of  all  Messianic  prediction  was  that  it 
came  with  the  authority  of  God.  That  God  being  true 
could  not  lie ;  that  God  being  omniscient  could  not  be 
ignorant ;  that  God  being  immutable  could  not  change. 
Undoubtedly  the  charge  was  serious ;  possibly  the 
defendant  was  not  aware  of  what  he  had  been  denying. 
But,  if  innocent  of  the  charge,  it  was  for  him  to  retract  the 
assertion,  or  to  meet  the  evidence  of  the  Committee  with 


267 

proper  evidence  of  his  own.  On  the  contrary,  he  asserts 
before  the  testimony  is  taken,  that  he  does  not  hold  any 
such  doctrine,  and  yet  reaffirms  the  doctrine  by  declining 
to  retract  the  original  statement.  Can  any  one  say  that 
such  a  manner  of  dealing  with  the  subject  did  not  demand 
the  judicial  decision  of  the  Presbytery  ? 

This  brings  us  to  the  other  ground  upon  which  Charge 
4  was  struck  out.  It  was  because  of  the  alleged  dis- 
claimers and  disavowals  of  the  defendant. 

All  the  eight  amended  charges  alleged  certain  offences. 
The  evidence  for  these  allegations  was  contained  in 
verbatim  citations  from  the  writings  of  Dr.  Briggs,  which 
he  himself  put  in  evidence,  and  which  he  declined  to 
withdraw  or  retract.  Prior  to  being  called  upon  to  plead 
"guilty"  or  "  not  guilty"  to  the  charges,  and  while  the 
sufficiency  of  the  charges  was  under  discussion,  his 
alleged  disclaimers  and  disavowals,  which  were  not  at 
that  time  in  evidence,  were  brought  forward  as  a  ground 
upon  which  Charge  4  and  also  Charge  7  should  be  struck 
out.  He  objected,  and  Dr.  George  Alexander  objected 
on  his  behalf,  to  going  to  trial  on  Charges  4  and  7, 
because  he  had  never  taught  the  doctrines  with  teaching 
which  he  is  therein  charged.  Why,  then,  did  he  consent 
to  go  to  trial  on  the  remaining  charges  ?  Was  it  because 
he  has  taught  the  doctrines  therein  alleged  ?  If  that  is 
the  reason,  then  why  did  he  plead  not  guilty  to  these 
remaining  charges  ?  Why  did  he  not  disclaim  these  as 
he  disclaimed  Charges  4  and  7  ?    But,  if  he  has  not  taught 


268     . 

any  of  the  doctrines  alleged  in  the  amended  eight  charges, 
why  not  go  to  trial  on  all  eight  of  them,  or  else  disclaim 
having  committed  the  offences  contained  in  all  eight  of 
them  ?  The  Committee  had  no  wish  to  find  more  errors 
in  the  Inaugural  than  were  really  there  ;  but  the  duty  of 
the  Committee  was  to  the  church,  to  come  to  a  decision 
as  to  these  doctrines  taught  explicitly  in  the  Inaugural 
Address,  which  had  never  been  withdrawn  or  retracted 
by  the  defendant.  A  plea  of  not  guilty  is  not  sufficient 
evidence  in  a  man's  defence.  Still  less  is  a  plea  of  not 
guilty  sufficient  evidence  when  it  is  not  introduced  as 
evidence,  but  is  brought  forward  irregularly  as  a  pre- 
liminary objection  to  the  indictment. 

Much  fault  was  found  with  the  committee  for  noticing 
this  doctrine  of  predictive  prophecy  in  connection  with 
Dr.  Briggs'  doctrine  of  Scripture,  but  the  mandate  of  the 
Assembly  was  that  the  case  should  be  tried  on  its  merits, 
and  this  was  a  part  of  the  original  case.  The  Inaugural 
Address  had  been  put  in  evidence  by  the  defendant  him- 
self; it  was  no  injustice  to  discuss  that  evidence. 

Having  discussed  so  especially  Charge  4,  but  little  re- 
mains to  be  said  with  respect  to  the  amended  Charge  7. 
It  will  be  sufficient  to  inquire  whether  it  was  a  new 
charge.  Charge  7  of  the  amended  charges  is  a  sub- 
division of  Charge  2  of  the  original  charges. 

The  latter  charged  the  defendant  with  teaching  a  doc- 
trine of  "  the  character,  state  and  sanctification  of  believers 
"  after  death."     Notice  the  exact  words.     It  is  not  a  doc- 


269 

trine  of  the  sanctification  of  believers  after  death  alone, 
but  is  a  doctrine  with  respect  to  the  state  and  character 
after  death.     What  is  the  state  and  character  of  the  be- 
liever after  death  ?     Is  he  one  who  has  already  believed 
in  this  life,  or  has  he  come  to  faith  and  penitence  beyond 
the  grave  ?    On  this  subject  the  teaching  of  the  Inaugural 
Address  is  definite,  although  it  might  be  said  that  the 
second  original  charge  was  indefinite.     To  make  the  ac- 
cusation definite,  so  that  the  defendant  might  have  knowl- 
edge of  the  specific  offence  with  which  he  was  charged,  the 
original  Charge  2  was  divided  into  amended  Charges  7 
and  8.      The  general  nature  of   original  Charge   2  was 
eschatological.     It   was   also   so    closely   related   to  Dr. 
Briggs'  doctrine  of  Redemption,  that  one  of  these  doc- 
trines could  not  be  understood  to  the  exclusion   of  the 
other.     The  Committee  was  prepared  to  show  that  the 
defendant  had  taught  that  other  processes  than  sanctifica- 
tion were  continued  in  the  life  to  come,  and  they  summed 
these  up  in  the  words,  state  and  character,  as  distinguished 
from  sanctification.     Dr.  Briggs  has  expressly  taught  that 
more  than  one  of  the  processes  of  redemption  may  go  on  in 
the  future  state.     The  Committee  were  prepared  to  prove 
this  at  the  time  when  the  original  charges  were  presented, 
and  they  are  prepared  to  prove  the  amended  Charge  7,  to 
which  Dr.  Briggs,  in  advance  of  being  called  to  plead, 
made  the  alleged  disclaimer.     Judicial  process  was  neces- 
sary   to    determine    whether    his    written  words    upon 
which   the   charges  are  based  or   his   verbal   disclaimer 
were   to   be  taken  as  the  truth.     The   language    of  the 


270 

Inaugural  is  on  this  point  unambiguous,  and  has  never 
been  retracted. 

The  original  Charge  2   deals  with  the   subject-matter 
of  both  amended  Charges  7  and  8. 

Under  the  specification  to  the  original  charge  is  cited 
that  passage  of  the  Inaugural  Address  where  it  is  said : 
"Another  fault  of  Protestant  theology  is  in  its  limitation 
"  of  the  process  of  redemption  to  this  world."    The  process 
of  redemption  is  a  process   which   corresponds   to   the 
"  character  and  state  ''  referred  to  under  original  Charge 
2 .   The  process  of  redemption,  according  to  the  defendant, 
is  a  manifold  process.     It  includes  regeneration,  faith,  as 
well  as  sanctification.     The  denial  of  Dr.  Briggs,  as  it  is 
called,  in  answer  to  the  question  on  this  subject  as  pro- 
pounded by  the  Directors  of  Union  Seminary,  took  place 
before  the  General  Assembly  of  1892  sent  the  case  for 
full  trial  to  the  lower  judicatory.     The  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee reappears   here   with   the   same   complaint,    that 
being   ready   to   prove  the  charge  with  respect  to  the 
defendant's  views  of  the  future  life,  in  spite  of  the  opin- 
ions of  judges  who  were  his  advocates  on  the  floor  of  the 
Presbytery,  the  general  nature  of  original  Charge  2  was 
so  changed  by  the  order  of  the  court  that  the  mandate  of 
the  General  Assembly  has  been  disobeyed  in  one  of  the 
most  important  particulars. 

The  changes  made  in  extracts  from  the  Confession  can- 
not change  the  general  nature  of  the  charge.  The  refer- 
ences to  the  Confession  in  both  series  of  charges   and 


271 

specifications  are  practically  the  same,  the  changes  being 
comparatively  few.  But  it  matters  not  whether  they  are 
few  or  many,  for  references  to  the  Standards  are  proofs 
to  the  charges,  not  part  of  the  charges  themselves.  In 
any  event,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Standards 
are  always  in  the  Court,  both  as  law  and  evidence,  and 
that  any  part  of  them  can  be  cited  at  any  time  in  support 
of  a  charge. 

2.  The  second  error  was  in  compelling  transfer  of  the 
proofs  from  their  proper  place  after  the  specifications  to  a 
place  immediately  following  the  charges.  Since  the 
Presbytery  was  to  vote  on  the  matter  contained  in  the 
specifications,  either  to  sustain  or  not  to  sustain  the 
charges,  it  was  the  Committee's  duty  to  show  that  the 
statements  contained  in  the  specifications  are  in  conflict 
with  Scripture  and  the  Standards.  The  order  to  transfer 
the  references  to  Scripture  and  the  Standards  from  the 
specifications  to  the  charges  was  made  with  the  evident 
purpose  to  place  them  where  they  could  not  be  used 
effectively  as  proofs.  This  order  therefore  was  a  gross 
error  in  procedure  on  the  part  of  the  Presbytery  as 
pointed  out  in  the  third  specification. 

3.  The  insertion  of  a  large  amount  of  matter  into  the 
official  stenographic  report,  at  the  request  of  the  defendant 
and  with  the  approval  of  the  Moderator,  after  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  Court  and  after  both  parties  had  given 
notice  that  they  had  presented  all  the  evidence  which  they 
intended  to   offer,  was  grossly   irregular   and  therefore 


272 

more  than  a  mistake,  as  indicated  in  Specifications  7 
and  8.  It  needs  no  discussion  to  convince  the  Assem- 
bly that  evidence  can  be  introduced  regularly  only  in 
open  Court  and  at  the  proper  time. 

4.  The  vote  to  strike  from  the  record  the  request  of 
the  Committee  of  Prosecution,  as  stated  in  Specifications 
9  and  10;  the  refusal  to  permit  the  members  of  the 
judicatory  to  vote  to  sustain  in  part,  as  indicated  in  the 
eleventh  specification  ;  and  the  decision  to  give  to  the 
unsworn  statements,  explanations  and  disclaimers  of  the 
defendant  the  force  of  sworn,  approbated  and  subscribed 
testimony  as  noticed  in  the  sixth  specification,  were  all 
flagrant  errors  of  procedure.  The  bare  mentioning  of 
them  makes  plain  their  irregularity. 

5.  The  sixth  specification  refers  to  the  new  matter 
alleged  to  have  been  introduced  in  the  argument  replying 
to  that  of  Dr.  Briggs.  If  that  contention  had  any  force,  it 
obliges  us  to  make  the  terms  "  new  matter  "  equivalent  to 
new  evidence.  A  reference  to  the  argument  will  show 
any  thoughtful  man  that  no  new  evidence  was  introduced. 
That  new  matter,  in  the  way  of  varied  presentation  of  the 
case,  in  the  way  of  illustration  and  argument  was  brought 
in,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  otherwise  the  closing  argu- 
ment would  have  been  but  a  repetition  of  the  opening. 
The  argument  was  confined  strictly  within  the  limits  of 
the  evidence  submitted,  and  in  every  case  was  directed 
against  the  pivotal  positions  of  the  Appellee.  It  was  un- 
necessary to  follow  the  defence  step  by  step.     It  was  no 


273 

less  the  Committee's  duty  than  its  privilege  to  show  in 
any  legitimate  way  which  seemed  most  effective  that  he 
had  evaded  the  main  issue  and  had  not  harmonized  his 
views  with  the  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Standards. 

The  defendant  errs  in  maintaining  that  we  had  only  the 
right  of  rebuttal.  The  Committee's  argument  was  not  in 
rebuttal,  but  was  the  closing  argument  of  the  prosecution, 
in  which  all  the  evidence  submitted  by  both  was  at  our 
disposal  for  use  in  answer  to  that  of  the  defence. 

The  Appellee  also  errs  in  speaking  of  illustration  in 
argument  as  the  introduction  of t  new  evidence.  It  is  a 
well-settled  principle  of  ecclesiastical  procedure  that 
authorities  quoted  in  illustration  have  the  force,  not  of 
evidence,  but  of  argument. 

It  was  therefore  irregular  to  allow  the  defendant  to  re- 
ply to  the  closing  argument  of  the  prosecution. 

6.  The  twelfth  specification  calls  your  attention  to  the 
order  of  the  inferior  judicatory,  directing  that  each  item 
of  the  several  charges  should  be  voted  on  separately,  for 
the  alleged  reason  that  each  charge  contained  as  many 
offences  as  it  contains  direct  references  to  doctrines  of  the 
Standards.  But  this  is  clearly  a  mistake.  Each  one  of 
the  five  charges  contains  but  a  single  offence  as  any  one 
will  see  from  a  single  glance  at  them. 

The  double  or  triple  reference  to  doctrines  of  the  Con- 
fession does  not  multiply  the  offence  to  that  extent,  but 
furnishes  so  many  proofs  to  establish  the  one    offence. 


274 

Had  we  cited  a  dozen  doctrines  of  the  Confession  in  sup- 
port of  a  charge  and  in  addition  a  hundred  texts  from  the 
Bible,  they  would  not  have  made  so  many  different  of- 
fences in  the  charge,  but  would  have  been  merely  so 
many  added  proofs  to  establish  the  one  offence  of  the 
charge.  If  the  position  taken  by  the  Presbytery  be  cor- 
rect, then  it  will  be  impossible  ever  to  cite  more  than  one 
proof  in  support  of  an  offence. 

2d.  The  second  and  third  grounds  of  appeal  refer  to 
the  question  of  testimony,  and  they  may  be  con- 
sidered together. 

i.  That  large  amount  of  matter  which,  by  the  request 
of  the  defendant  and  with  the  approval  of  the  Moderator, 
was  inserted  into  the  official  stenographic  report,  after  the 
adjournment  of  the  Presbytery,  cannot,  in  any  proper 
sense,  be  called  testimony  at  all.  And  yet  it  was  allowed 
by  the  Presbytery  to  remain  on  the  record  as  competent 
evidence. 

In  regard  to  the  other  evidence  offered  by  Dr.  Briggs, 
it  should  be  said  that  he  declined  to  verify  it  under  oath. 
He  denounced  the  request  that  he  be  required  to  do  so 
as  an  outrage.  He  was  both  counsel  and  client,  and,  as 
counsel,  he  made  statements,  explanations  and  disclaim- 
ers in  regard  to  the  language  which  his  client  had  used, 
to  which  the  inferior  judicatory,  contrary  to  the  direc- 
tions of  Sections  6 1  and  62  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  gave 
the  full  value  of  competent  evidence  for  making  up  their 
final  verdict. 


275 

This  was  especially  unfortunate,  as  it  has  been  all 
along  evident,  we  are  not  so  much  concerned  with  the 
form  of  the  defendant's  statements  as  with  the  meaning 
which  he  puts  into  the  form.  Had  the  Presbytery 
ordered  Dr.  Briggs  to  put  his  client  on  the  witness-stand 
to  make  affirmations  under  oath,  as  the  Book  directs,  it 
might  have  been  possible  to  determine  more  exactly  the 
value  and  meaning  which  are  to  be  attached  to  his  state- 
ments. 

2.  Furthermore,  the  Presbytery  erred  in  declining  to 
receive  important  testimony.  We  have  shown  that  the 
fourth  and  seventh  charges  properly  belong  to  the 
amended  series,  since  the  matter  contained  in  them  was 
essentially  in  the  original  charges. 

In  these  charges  Dr.  Briggs  is  accused  of  teaching 
grave  errors.  The  Committee  of  Prosecution  offered  to 
produce  testimony  to  prove  those  charges  ;  and  whether 
competent  to  prove  them  or  not,  it  was  certainly  impor- 
tant testimony,  and  for  that  reason  should  have  been  re- 
ceived and  examined  by  the  Presbytery.  But  instead  of 
that  the  Presbytery  ordered  the  charges  to  be  stricken 
out  on  the  ground  principally  of  some  general  disclaimers 
which  Dr.  Briggs  was  alleged  to  have  made,  but  which 
were  not  specified  and  were  not  presented  to  the  Court 
as  testimony. 

3rd.  The  state  of  things  to  which  your  attention  is  called 
in  the  specifications  given  under  the  fourth  ground  of  ap- 
peal, shows  conclusively  that  prejudice  was  manifested  in 


276 

the  conduct  of  the  case.  I  need  not  speak  of  them  at 
length.  Similar  conduct  by  members  of  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  was  declared  by  the  Assembly  of  1892  to 
be  a  manifestation  of  prejudice. 

A  number  of  the  members  of  the  lower  Court  showed 
a  deep  personal  interest  in  the  case  of  the  defendant. 
Some  manifested  all  the  zeal  of  advocates  instead  of  main- 
taining the  calmness  and  equipoise  of  judges. 

One  of  the  judges  allowed  his  zeal  to  carry  him  so  far 
that  he  affirmed  and  re-affirmed  that  some  of  the  charges 
gave  Dr.  Briggs  the  lie  direct. 

The  names  of  some  of  the  judges  are  introduced  be- 
cause of  a  principle  which  is  here  involved.  It  is  not 
simply  that  in  assuming  the  role  of  advocates  they  exhib- 
ited prejudice.  It  is  especially  on  account  of  the  grounds 
upon  which  they  made  prejudiced  appeals  to  the  Court. 
Their  remarks  also  have  especial  interest  from  the  time 
at  which  they  were  made. 

In  the  closing  argument  for  the  prosecution  citations  by 
way  of  argument  and  illustrations  were  made  from  many 
eminent  writers  as  expressive  of  the  views  which  the 
speaker  was  maintaining.  It  was  not  new  evidence,  for 
the  time  of  taking  evidence  was  past.  This  kind  of 
argument  was  characterized  by  Dr.  George  Alexander 
as  a  "fresh  assault"  upon  Dr.  Briggs,  and  another 
judge  insisted  that  new  matter  had  been  introduced. 
They  were  called  upon  to  specify  the  "new  matter." 
They  did  not  and  could  not  do  so. 

Their  objection  was  to  the  quotations  which  illustrated 


277 

the  speaker's  denial  of  the  claim  of  Dr.  Briggs  that  his 
views  represented  the  belief  of  historic  Presbyterianism. 
These  extracts  made  every  drop  of  Anglo-Saxon  blood 
in  the  brethren  named  "  to  protest  and  boil."  The  quo- 
tations were  from  men  like  Augustine,  Luther,  Calvin, 
Baxter,  the  Westminster  divines,  and  especially  from  the 
writings  of  American  Presbyterians  like  Jonathan  Dickin- 
son, Samuel  Davies,  Jonathan  Edwards,  John  Wither- 
spoon,  Ashbel  Green,  Archibald  Alexander,  Thomas  H. 
Skinner,  Albert  Barnes  and  Henry  B.  Smith.  If  the  time 
has  come  when  Presbyterian  blood  boils  at  the  words  of 
such  men  as  these,  I  insist  that  the  attention  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  should  be  called  to  the  fact ;  especially 
since  the  blood  of  the  same  judges  did  not  "  protest  and 
boil ''  when  the  defendant  introduced  a  large  number  of 
names  as  authorities  in  support  of  his  doctrine  of  an  errant 
Bible,  many  of  whom  advance  rationalistic,  if  not  infidel, 
views,  and  none  of  them,  in  my  opinion,  hold  the  true 
Presbyterian  doctrine  respecting  the  Holy  Scripture. 

This  claim  on  the  part  of  the  Committee,  that  there  was 
prepossession  of  opinion  and  prejudiced  judgment  on  the 
part  of  certain  officials  of  Union  Seminary,  is  not  essen- 
tially different  from  the  declaration  of  the  Directors  them- 
selves. This  declaration  was  made  through  Mr.  Kingsley, 
their  representative  in  the  General  Assembly  in  1892. 
According  to  him,  previous  to  the  regular  trial  in  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  there  had  been  an  investigation 
of  the  charges  brought  against  Dr.  Briggs.  This  investi- 
gation was  made  by  the  officers  of  Union  Seminary.  The 


278 

result  was  the  questions  put  by  the  Directors  of  Union 
Seminary  and  answered  by  Dr.  Briggs,  to  which  allusion 
has  so  often  been  made.  I  quote  from  the  report  of  the 
Directors  read  by  Mr.  Kingsley  before  the  Portland 
Assembly  : 

1 '  This  board  had  carefully  investigated  the  charges 
"  which  the  Presbyteries  were  bringing  against  Dr. 
"  Briggs  and  had  received  from  him  a  clear  and  positive 
11  denial  of  each  charge,  on  the  ground  of  which  denials 
11  the  board  resolved  to  sustain  him,  saying  that  '  we  will 
M  stand  by  him  heartily  on  the  ground  of  this  report'  (i.  e., 
11  the  report  of  his  denials  received  from  the  committee  of 
"  investigation)." 

And  again  in  his  remarks  on  the  report  Mr.  Kingsley 
said  :  "It  was  due  to  ourselves  and  to  Dr.  Briggs  that 
1 '  we  should  be  true  to  the  promise  we  had  made  '  to 
11  stand  by  him.'  " 

Prejudice  was  also  manifested  by  the  Presbytery  in 
allowing  the  defendant  the  largest  liberty  for  introducing 
improper  testimony ;  in  declining  to  receive  important 
testimony  offered  by  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  ; 
in  throwing  out  Charges  4  and  7  ;  in  expressing  a 
desire  to  relieve  the  Committee  of  Prosecution  from  any 
further  responsibility  in  connection  with  the  case ;  and  in 
stating  it  to  be  their  ' '  earnest  conviction  that  the  grave 
"  issues  involved  in  this  case  will  be  more  wisely  and 
"  justly  determined  by  calm  investigation  and  fraternal 
11  discussion  than  by  judicial  arraignment  and  process." 

As  the  issues  involved  are  acknowledged  to  be  "  grave," 


279 

it  would  be  reasonable  for  unbiased  judges  to  conclude 
that  those  issues  would  be  more  wisely  and  justly  deter- 
mined by  judicial  process  rather  than  by  the  calm  investi- 
gation and  fraternal  discussion,  by  which  nothing  can  be 
determined  authoritatively. 

4th.  The  facts  presented  in  the  specifications  under  the 
fifth  ground  of  appeal  show  that  mistakes  and 
injustice  have  entered  into  the  final  judgment 
of  the  inferior  judicatory. 

A  brief  consideration  of  a  few  of  these  facts  cannot 
fail  to  convince  you. 

1.  According  to  Section  58  of  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
if  the  specifications  of  fact  on  which  a  charge  is  based  have 
been  shown  to  be  true,  then  the  charge  is  to  be  consid- 
ered as  sustained.  Dr.  Briggs  offered  no  proof  to  show 
that  he  had  not  made  the  statements  which  are  cited  in  the 
specifications.  On  the  contrary,  he  admitted  and  authen- 
ticated them  all.  The  charges  were  based  on  these  state- 
ments and  sustained  by  them.  Under  such  circum- 
stances, a  verdict  of  acquittal  could  be  justified  only  on  the 
ground  that  the  charges  themselves  were  not  relevant  or 
that  they  contained  no  valid  offences.  But  when  the 
Presbytery  declared  the  charges  and  specifications  to  be 
sufficient  in  form  and  legal  effect,  it  thereby  decided  that 
the  charges  severally  alleged  an  offence.  Otherwise,  the 
charges  and  specifications  would  not  have  been  sufficient 
in  form  and  legal  effect.  And  therefore,  since  the  charges 
were  sustained  by  the  facts  stated  in  the  specifications, 


280 

it  must  be  that  the  verdict  of  acquittal  was  not  reached 
in  accordance  with  the  law  and  evidence  in  the  case. 

2.  That  the  charges  were  proved  becomes  still  more 
evident  from  the  statement  made  in  the  verdict  rendered 
by  the  inferior  judicatory  to  the  effect  that  in  acquitting 
Dr.  Briggs,  the  Presbytery  is  not  to  be  understood  as 
11  expressing  approval  of  the  critical  and  theological  views 
"embodied  in  his  Inaugural  Address."  A  resolution  to 
that  effect  was  introduced  on  the  floor  of  Presbytery  when 
the  voting  was  about  to  commence,  possibly  with  the 
intention  of  securing  votes  for  acquittal  which  otherwise 
might  be  conscientiously  withheld. 

But  why  this  caveat  if  the  views  of  Dr.  Briggs  are  in 
harmony  with  received  truth  ?  Manifestly,  the  majority 
of  Presbytery  do  not  desire  to  burden  themselves  or 
cloud  their  reputation  by  an  espousal  of  those  views. 
They  must  consider  the  influence  of  such  doctrines  bane- 
ful to  no  slight  extent. 

For  those  critical  and  theological  views,  Dr.  Briggs 
was  put  on  trial.  He  not  only  approves  them,  but  dili- 
gently propagates  them.  And  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
lower  Court,  by  a  calm  and  impartial  investigation,  to 
ascertain  whether  or  not,  those  critical  and  theological 
views  are  in  harmony  with  the  Holy  Scripture  and  the 
Standards  ;  and  to  condemn  them  if  they  did  not  find 
them  in  harmony  with  those  authorities,  and  thus  to  check 
their  spread  and  influence  in  the  most  effective  way. 


281 

The  fact  that  they  felt  disinclined  to  acquit  the  defend- 
ant, without  expressing  a  distinct  disavowal  of  his  critical 
and  theological  views,  for  which  he  is  on  trial,  leads  to  a 
very  strong  presumption  that  the  decision  is  contrary  to 
the  evidence  not  only,  but  that  those  rendering  the  decis- 
ion recognize  the  views  of  the  defendant  as  conflicting 
with  the  Scripture  and  the  Standards ;  for,  certainly,  no 
body  of  Presbyterian  ministers  and  elders  need  be  at 
pains  to  disavow  views  which  are  in  accord  with  the  Bible 
and  our  Creed.  The  inferior  judicatory,  in  this  final 
judgment,  has  not  given  us  either  good  Presbyterian  law 
or  doctrine. 

3.  The  presumption  that  the  charges  were  proved  is 
strengthened  by  reference  to  the  method  by  which  the 
verdict  was  reached.  This  was  by  "  giving  due  consid- 
"  eration  to  the  defendant's  explanation  of  the  language 
11  used  in  his  Inaugural  Address,  accepting  his  frank  and 
11  full  disclaimer  of  the  interpretation  which  has  been  put 
"  upon  some  of  its  phrases  and  illustrations,"  and  "cred- 
4 '  iting  his  affirmations  of  loyalty  to  the  Standards  of  the 
•'  Church  and  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  only  infallible 
"  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

This  can  only  mean  that  they  have  taken  Dr.  Briggs  at 
his  own  word.  By  their  own  confession,  therefore,  they 
have  not  decided  the  case  on  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

It  is  well  known  that  Dr.  Briggs  entered  a  plea  of 
"  not  guilty " ;  that  he  claims  to  be  orthodox  and  that 
he  subscribes  to  an  orthodox  creed.     But,  in  spite  of  all 


282 

that,  he  has  made  and  persists  in  making  the  statements 
for  which  he  has  been  called  in  question,  and  which  have 
alarmed  the  whole  Church. 

The  question  to  be  determined  is,  whether  or  not  the 
views  of  Dr.  Briggs  can  be  tolerated  under  the  orthodox 
creed  to  which  he  subscribes  ;  and  to  take  his  word  for  it 
is  to  evade  the  whole  issue.  The  explanations  and  dis- 
claimers referred  to  have  not  been  indicated  in  the  ver- 
dict. One  wonders  where  and  what  they  are.  They  are 
certainly  not  competent  evidence.  Dr.  Briggs  has,  in  fact, 
disclaimed  nothing,  but  has  distinctly  reaffirmed  all  the 
views  of  his  Inaugural  Address  of  every  kind. 

Is  it  to  be  expected  that,  if  the  statements  of  Dr.  Briggs 
did  not  relieve  the  minds  of  his  devoted  personal  friends 
in  the  New  York  Presbytery,  they  can  bring  assurance 
and  peace  to  the  Church  ? 

4.  The  lower  judicatory,  in  its  final  judgment,  makes 
also  a  number  of  vague,  misleading  and  contradictory 
statements  which  give  further  evidence  of  mistake  and 
injustice  in  that  judgment. 

It  is  intimated  in  the  verdict  that  the  present  contro- 
versy is  unjustifiable  ;  that  the  principles  at  stake  are  non- 
essential, belonging  with  "  truths  and  forms  with  regard 
"  to  which  men  of  good  character  may  differ,"  and  are 
within  the  limits  allowed  under  the  constitution  to 
"  scholarship  and  opinion  ";  and  that  there  has  been  an 
effort  made  to  convict  the  defendant  by  "  inference  and 


283 

"  implication,"  and  by  the  unfavorable  interpretation  of 
"  ambiguous  expressions." 

Is  it  true  then  that  doctrines  such  as  the  sole  suprem- 
acy of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  an  authority  in  matters 
of  religion,  their  entire  veracity  and  absolute  trustworthi- 
ness, and  the  question  whether  the  process  of  redemp- 
tion is  confined  to  this  life,  or  is  to  be  extended  to  the 
life  beyond  the  grave,  are  matters  about  which  Presby- 
terian ministers  and  elders  may  differ,  or  mere  matters  of 
opinion  which  the  scholars  of  our  Church  may  adopt  or 
reject  ?  May  one  who  has  assumed  the  ordination  vow 
of  a  Presbyterian  minister  teach  that  the  Church,  as  a 
great  Fountain  of  divine  authority,  can  savingly  en- 
lighten men  and  give  them  religious  certainty  apart  from 
the  Holy  Scripture  ;  that  the  Reason  as  a  great  fountain  of 
divine  authority  can  savingly  enlighten  and  give  religious 
certainty  to  those  who  not  only  reject  the  Scripture,  but 
the  entire  body  of  distinctively  evangelical  truth  ?  May 
he  teach  that  the  process  of  redemption  extends  into  the 
next  world?  It  is  neither  candid  nor  honest  to  evade 
these  questions. 

The  majority  of  Presbytery  hesitate  indeed,  and,  while 
they  acquit,  enter  a  caveat.  They  say  that  "grave 
issues  "  are  involved  in  the  case.  But  if  the  issues  are 
grave,  then  there  must  be  something  more  than  mere 
"  inference,"  "  implication,"  and  non-essential  principles, 
as  to  which  Presbyterian  ministers  may  differ. 


284 

5.  It  is  further  evident  from  the  language  used  in  the 
final  judgment,  that  the  inferior  judicatory  did  not  make 
a  decision  on  the  merits  of  the  case.  They  declare  it  to 
be  their  "  earnest  conviction  that  the  grave  issues  involved 
"  in  this  case  will  be  more  wisely  and  justly  determined 
14  by  calm  investigation  and  fraternal  discussion  than  by 
"  judicial  arraignment  and  process."  What  is  this  but  to 
say  that  they  threw  the  case  out  of  Court  for  the  reason 
that  they  have  an  "  earnest  conviction  against  settling  the 
"  grave  issues  involved  in  it  by  judicial  arraignment  and 
<(  process?  " 

The  Presbytery  was  constituted  a  Court  to  try  the  case 
by  judicial  process,  and  the  acknowledgment  that  the 
members  had  an  "  earnest  conviction  "  against  determin- 
ing the  issues  involved  in  that  way  amounts  to  a  confes- 
sion on  their  part  that  they  were  disqualified  to  sit  as 
judges.  The  Presbytery  of  New  York,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, decided  that  the  case  was  a  proper  one  for  judicial 
investigation  ;  the  General  Assembly  sent  it  back  to 
Presbytery  with  direction  to  try  the  case  on  its  merits, 
and  the  members  of  the  Court  were  solemnly  charged  to 
determine  the  issues  of  the  case  by  judicial  process  ;  if  the 
majority  of  the  lower  Court  were  prepossessed  against 
determining  such  issues  in  that  way,  they  should  have 
withdrawn  from  the  Court  and  thus  have  permitted  the 
case  to  be  tried  by  those  who  believe  in  determining  im- 
portant questions  of  doctrine  by  means  of  judicial  arraign- 
ment and  process,  as  the  constitution  directs. 


285 

But  it  is  certain  that  a  body  having  this  earnest  convic- 
tion against  settling  the  questions  in  dispute  by  judicial 
process,  could  not  give  a  righteous  or  even  intelligent 
judgment  on  the  merits  of  the  case.  The  verdict  is  self- 
contradictory.  In  effect,  the  opinions  of  Dr.  Briggs  are 
declared  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  Scripture  and  the 
Standards,  but  discredit  is  thrown  on  the  judgment  by 
the  refusal  to  approve  the  very  views  which  form  the 
basis  of  the  trial.  Such  a  verdict  is  unjust  to  all  and  can 
do  nothing  to  allay  the  disquietude  which  pervades  the 
Presbyterian  Church. 

We  are  now  to  show  by  an  examination  of  the  merits 
of  the  case,  that  the  final  judgment  rendered  in  it  by  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  is  not  in  harmony  with  the 
Holy  Scripture,  the  Standards,  and  with  the  evidence 
submitted. 

Dr.  Briggs  has  disavowed  nothing.  He  expressly  de- 
clares that  he  holds  firmly  to  all  the  views  contained  in 
the  Inaugural  Address.  He  says  :  "  The  Inaugural  Ad- 
11  dress  was  simply  a  concentration  of  opinions  expressed 
"  more  at  length  in  other  places  and  under  other  circum- 
u  stances.  The  defendant  is  altogether  unconscious  of 
11  any  substantial  change  of  opinion  on  the  subject-matters 
11  of  the  charges  for  many  years.  *  *  *  The  defendant 
"  has  not  asked  for  toleration.  He  claims  his  rights  un- 
M  der  the  constitution  of  his  Church  to  teach  anything 
11  and  everything  that  he  has  ever  taught."  (Defence, 
Preface,  p.  18.) 


286 

Nor  has  he  made  any  statements  or  explanations  which 
show  the  views,  which  are  the  subject  of  these  charges, 
to  be  in  harmony  with  the  Bible  and  our  Standards. 

The  bare  categorical  replies  by  Dr.  Briggs  to  a  series 
of  questions  put  to  him  by  sympathetic  professors  and 
directors  of  the  Union  Seminary,  neither  explain  or  dis- 
avow anything ;  for  all  but  one  of  the  questions  are  sus- 
ceptible of  more  than  one  meaning,  and  the  answers  can 
be  made  by  one  holding  the  doctrines  of  Dr.  Briggs. 
They  give  us  no  more  light  than  does  his  orthodox  sub- 
scription. 

It  is  conceded  freely  and  cheerfully  that  Dr.  Briggs  has 
made  many  orthodox  statements  and  that  he  has  sup- 
ported them  efficiently.  No  accusation  is  made  against 
him  for  these.  But  he  has  been  charged  with  the  propa- 
gation of  views  which  are  believed  to  be  heretical.  For 
these  he  has  been  put  on  trial. 

In  his  Defence,  Dr.  Briggs  made  a  number  of  state- 
ments in  reference  to  the  law  by  which  he  is  to  be  judged, 
which,  if  accepted,  reduce  that  law  as  nearly  as  possible 
to  a  nonentity. 

He  contends  that  the  Court  must  determine  whether 
or  not  the  doctrines  are  essential  to  our  system  ;  but  he 
contends  also  that  the  decision  must  depend  upon  the  ex- 
tent of  the  system  as  understood  by  the  Westminster 
divines,  so  that  in  so  far  as  the  doctrines  of  that  system 
are  differently  understood  now  than  they  were  by  those 


287 

divines,  he  is  not  to  be  tried  by  them.  He  forgets  that 
we  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  opinions  of  the  West- 
minster divines.  If  we  have  to  do  with  any,  we  should 
follow  those  of  the  American  divines,  who  adopted  the 
Presbyterian  Standards  of  1788  as  representative  of  their 
own  views. 

He  maintains  also  that  he  is  not  to  be  tried  by  the  Bible 
except  so  far  as  it  has  been  embodied  and  denned  in  our 
Standards.  But  he  does  not  wish  to  be  tried  by  the 
Standards  except  in  so  far  as  they  can  be  proven  to  be  true 
by  express  statements  of  the  Scripture ;  nor  would  he  be 
tried  by  all  that  part  of  the  Standards  which  is  supported 
by  express  statements  of  Scripture.  The  measuring- 
rod,  according  to  Dr.  Briggs,  must  consist  only  of  those 
doctrines  which  are  stated  in  the  Confession  and  in  both 
of  the  Catechisms.  If  a  doctrine  of  the  Confession  be  not 
restated  in  both  Catechisms,  then  it  is  not  to  enter  into 
consideration  even  though  it  be  shown  to  be  true  from  the 
Holy  Scripture.  This  fencing  about  the  law  gives  the  im- 
pression that  the  defendant  is  conscious  of  inherent  weak- 
ness. 

There  is  no  need  of  hedging  and  fencing.  The  Book 
of  Discipline  gives  the  law  by  which  a  person  is  to  be 
tried  in  our  judicatories.  Sections  3  and  4  tell  us,  "  An 
"  offence  is  anything  in  the  doctrine,  principles  or  practice 
"  of  a  Church  member,  officer  or  judicatory,  which  iscon- 
"  trary  to  the  Word  of  God  ;  or  which,  if  it  be  not  in  its 
"  own  nature  sinful,  may  tempt  others  to  sin,  or  mar  their 
11  spiritual  edification.     Nothing   shall,  therefore,  be  the 


288 

"  object  of  judicial  process,  which  cannot  be  proved  to  be 
"  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  to  the  regulations 
"  and  practice  of  the  Church  founded  thereon.7'  It  is 
clear  that  anything  which  can  be  shown  to  be  contrary  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  is  an  offence  and  may  be  made  the 
object  of  judicial  process,  even  though  it  be  not  embodied 
or  defined  in  the  Standards  ;  and  in  like  manner  that 
anything  which  can  be  shown  to  be  contrary  to  the 
Standards  is  an  offence  which  may  be  made  the  object  of 
judicial  process,  even  though  it  be  not  supported  by  ex- 
press statements  of  Scripture,  for  the  Standards  accept 
doctrines  derived  from  Scripture  by  necessary  inference. 

The  prosecution  therefore  have  to  prove  the  offence 
either  against  the  Scripture  or  the  Standards  or  against 
both  ;  but  let  it  be  distinctly  observed  that  proof  from 
either  Scripture  or  Standards  alone  is  sufficient  to  estab- 
lish the  offence. 

The  degree  of  the  offence  and  the  measure  or  kind  of 
discipline  to  be  inflicted  for  it,  are  not  for  us,  but  for  the 
Court  to  determine.  We  have  never  said,  and  do  not  now, 
say  a  word  about  the  kind  of  discipline  which  should  be 
exercised  if  the  offence  were  established  ;  but  we  contend 
that  the  offence  is  one  which  merits  discipline. 

The  Craighead  case,  to  which  Dr.  Briggs  has  referred, 
was  essentially  different  from  the  one  in  hand  and  does 
not  apply  to  it ;  but  it  is  maintained  by  all  alike  that  if  the 
statements  of  Dr.  Briggs  are  capable  of  two  constructions, 
he  must  have  the  benefit  of  the  more  favorable  construe- 


tion,  should  he  claim  that  as  his,  even  if  the  more  evident 
construction,  is  plainly  heretical ;  and  also  that  he  is  not 
to  be  charged  with  an  opinion  which  he  disavows. 

Fountains  of  Divine  Authority. 

The  first  and  second  charges  refer  to  the  subject  of 
divine  authority  and  may  be  considered  together.  In 
them  he  is  charged  with  teaching  :  "First,  that  the  Rea- 
"  son  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  which  may  and 
''does  savingly  enlighten  men,  even  such  men  as  reject 
"the  Scriptures  as  the  authoritative  proclamation  of  the 
"  will  of  God  and  reject  also  the  way  of  salvation  through 
"  the  mediation  and  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God  as  re- 
"  vealed  therein."  "  Second,  that  the  Church  is  a  fountain 
"of  divine  authority  which,  apart  from  the  Holy  Scrip- 
"  ture,  may  and  does  savingly  enlighten  men."  We  ask 
you  to  notice  the  statements  contained  in  the  citations 
made  from  the  Inaugural  Address  in  the  specifications 
under  these  charges,  as  amply  justifying  these  charges. 

On  page  24  of  the  Inaugural,  after  having  referred  to 
the  imperfection  and  errancy  of  all  the  forms  of  human 
authority,  he  states  in  definition  of  divine  authority,  "  The 
"  earnest  spirit  presses  back  of  all  these  human  authorities  in 
"  quest  of  an  infallible  guide  and  of  an  eternal  and  immutable 
"  certainty.  Probability  might  be  the  guide  of  life  in  the 
"superficial  18th  century,  and  for  those  who  have  inher- 
11  ited  its  traditions,  but  the  men  of  the  present  times  are 
"  in   quest  of  certainty.     Divine   authority   is   the   only 


290 

"  authority  to  which  man  can  yield  implicit  obedience, 
"  on  which  he  can  rest  in  loving  certainty  and  build 
"  with  joyous  confidence."  *  *  *  There  are  historically 
three  great  fountains  of  divine  authority — the  Bible,  the 
Church  and  the  Reason." 

The  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason,  then,  are  equal 
in  being  great  fountains  of  divine  authority.  The  quality 
of  divinity,  and  the  right  of  divine  authority  belong  alike 
to  all  three  ;  and,  as  such,  each  can  be  to  man  an  infallible 
guide  of  life,  and  speak  to  him  with  eternal  and  immutable 
certainty,  for  he  can  yield  to  each  implicit  obedience, 
rest  on  each  with  loving  certainty  and  build  with  joyous 
confidence. 

It  does  not  in  the  least  relieve  the  matter  to  say  that 
the  Bible  differs  from  the  other  two  fountains  of  divine 
authority  in  being  in  addition  also  an  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  for  according  to  Dr.  Briggs'  own  definition, 
the  Church  and  the  Reason,  as  infallible  guides,  can  do 
for  men  precisely  the  same  things  which  the  Bible  does 
for  them  as  an  infallible  rule. 

We  have  to  do  with  the  Church  and  the  Reason.  In 
respect  to  them  Dr.  Briggs  affirms  :  first,  that  they  can 
conduct  men  to  a  saving  acquaintance  with  God ;  and 
second,  that  they  can  give  to  men  immutable  certainty  or 
assurance  in  matter  of  religion.  Martineau  and  the 
rationalists  are  examples  for  the  Reason.  Newman  and 
the  Churchman  for  the  Church. 


291 

"  Newman  could  not  reach  certainty  through  the  Bible, 
"  striving  never  so  hard.''  He  and  the  majority  of  Chris- 
tians from  the  apostolic  age  have  found  God  through  the 
Church.  "  Martyrs  and  saints,  fathers  and  schoolmen, 
"  the  profoundest  intellects,  the  saintliest  lives,  have 
"  had  this  experience.  Institutional  Christianity  has 
"  been  to  them  the  presence-chamber  of  God.''  Dr. 
Briggs  affirms  this  to  be  true  categorically,  although,  he 
remarks  :  "  It  is  difficult  for  many  Protestants  to  regard 
"  this  experience  as  any  other  than  pious  illusion  and  de- 
"  lusion.''     (Inaugural,  p.  25.) 

"Martineau  could  not  find  divine  authority  in  the 
"  Church  or  the  Bible,  but  he  did  find  God  enthroned  in 
"  his  own  soul."  (Inaugural,  p.  27.)  To  him  and  the 
rationalists,  the  Reason  is  the  Holy  of  Holies  of  human 
nature,  in  which  God  presents  Himself  to  those  who  seek 
Him.  (Inaugural,  p.  26.)  And  therefore,  although  it  is 
well  known  that  they  reject  the  Scriptures  as  the  authorita- 
tive proclamation  of  the  will  of  God  and  the  way  of 
salvation  through  the  mediation  and  sacrifice  of  the  Son 
of  God  as  revealed  therein,  Dr.  Briggs  nevertheless 
would  not  "refuse  these  Rationalists  a  place  in  the 
11  company  of  the  faithful."     (Inaugural,  p.  27). 

That  Dr.  Briggs  conceives  of  each  one  of  the  three 
fountains  of  divine  authority  as  capable  of  imparting  a 
saving  knowledge  of  God  is  evident  from  his  own  state- 
ments on  the  subject.  He  says  :  "  Unless  God's  authority 
"  is  discerned  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  there  is  no  ground 
"  upon  which  any  of  the  heathen  could  ever  have  been 


"  saved,  for  they  know  nothing  of  Bible  or  Church.  If 
11  they  are  not  savingly  enlightened  by  the  light  of  the 
"  World  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason  the  whole  heathen 
"  world  is  lost  forever."  (Inaug.,  2d  ed.,  pp.  88,  89.) 
The  divine  authority  in  the  Reason  therefore  does  sav- 
ingly enlighten  men  in  the  view  of  Dr.  Briggs. 

Again  he  says :  "  Spurgeon  is  an  example  of  the 
"average  modern  Evangelical,  who  holds  the  Protestant 
"  position  and  assails  the  Church  and  Reason  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  authority  of  Scripture.  But  the  average 
"  opinion  of  the  Christian  world  would  not  assign  him  a 
"higher  place  in  the  Kingdom  of  God  than  Martineau  or 
"  Newman.  May  we  not  conclude  on  the  whole,  that 
"  these  three  representative  Christians  of  our  time,  living 
"in  or  near  the  world's  metropolis,  have,  each  in  his  way, 
"found  God  and  rested  on  Divine  authority ?  *  *  * 
"  Men  are  influenced  by  their  temperaments  and  environ- 
"  ments  which  of  the  three  ways  of  access  to  God  they 
"  may  pursue."  (Inaugural,  p.  28.)  Here  Dr.  Briggs  not 
only  teaches  that  men  may  and  do  find  God  savingly 
through  any  one  of  the  three  fountains  of  divine  authority, 
but  admits  that  the  Bible,  as  the  only  way  for  obtaining  sal- 
vation and  certainty,  as  held  by  Spurgeon,  is  the  Pro- 
testant doctrine.  And  therefore,  since  the  Presbyterian 
Church  is  a  Protestant  Church,  he  convicts  himself  of 
teaching  doctrines  which  are  not  Presbyterian. 

The  labored  argument  made  by  Dr.  Briggs  in  his 
Defence  to  show  that  according  to  the  teaching  of  both 


293 

the  Bible  and  the  Standards,  the  Church  and  the  Reason 
are  great  fountains  of  divine  authority,  is  wide  of  the 
mark  and  wholly  unsuccessful. 

The  facts  that  God  can  give  evidence  of  himself  to 
man's  soul  and  that  man  has  the  power  of  verifying  truth, 
that  he  can  receive  communications  from  God,  and  be 
the  subject  of  gracious  influences,  show  that  as  created  in 
the  image  of  God,  man  is  endowed  with  a  moral  and 
rational  nature,  but  does  not  at  all  prove  that  his  reason 
is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority. 

The  Church,  as  shown  by  the  citations  which  Dr.  Briggs 
made  from  the  Standards,  has  no  authority  except  such 
as  Christ  has  delegated  to  it,  and  prescribed  for  it  in  his 
word.  The  Church  is  guilty  of  usurpation  whenever  it 
attempts  to  exercise  authority  not  so  delegated  or  pre- 
scribed, so  that  it  may  become  a  curse  instead  of  a 
blessing,  as  abundantly  shown  in  the  history  of  the  Church. 

Christ  is  supreme  in  the  Church  and  in  all  matters  of 
faith  and  life.  But  we  know  nothing  about  Him,  except 
through  the  Bible  story.  The  truth  by  means  of  which 
He  saves  and  assures  His  people  is  treasured  up  in  the 
Scriptures,  so  that  we  are  shut  up  to  them,  both  for  a 
saving  knowledge  of  God  and  for  assurance.  The  Bible 
alone  tells  us  what  we  need  to  know  about  God,  ourselves, 
the  plan  of  salvation,  our  duty  and  the  conditions  of  eter- 
nal life  and  destiny.  For  this  reason,  the  Bible  alone,  as 
against  the  Church  and  Reason,  gives  light  in  the  moral 
and  spiritual  realm.     It  is  a  light  to  man's  pathway  and  a 


294 

lamp  to  his  feet,  by  which  he  discovers  his  way  through 
the  darkness  of  this  world  to  the  world  of  eternal  light. 
The  Bible  is  as  the  bread  of  God  to  give  life  to  men's 
souls,  for  man  shall  live  by  every  word  that  proceedeth 
out  of  the  mouth  of  God.  The  Church  is  constituted  of 
errant  men  and  women  only  partially  sanctified,  and  the 
Reason,  unless  enlightened  by  the  word  of  God,  gropes  in 
the  darkness  of  sin.  Neither  has  power  to  enlighten, 
assure  and  quicken  a  human  soul,  but  light  and  life  come 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  believing  hearts,  for  in  them 
the  Holy  Spirit  speaks  with  divine  love  and  power. 

In  harmony  with  all  evangelical  Protestants,  Presby- 
terians believe  that  salvation  and  assurance  are  obtained 
through  belief  of  truth  revealed  in  the  Holy  Scripture  ; 
they  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that,  since  the  Holy  Spirit 
bears  witness  by  and  with  the  word  of  this  blessed  book 
which  has  expressly  set  down  in  it  the  whole  counsel  of 
God  concerning  all  things  necessary  for  His  own  glory, 
man's  salvation,  faith  and  life,  men  who  tell  us  they  can- 
not find  God  and  certainty  in  these  Holy  Scriptures  are, 
as  those  Scriptures  declare,  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins. 

The  Scripture  expressly  declares  that  men  by  wisdom, 
that  is  through  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  have  not  known 
God.  History  shows  that  to  be  absolutely  true.  Reason, 
unaided  by  revealed  truth,  has  never  been  able  to  bring 
man  out  of  the  bondage  of  sin  to  God.  And,  therefore, 
"  it  pleased  God  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching  to  save 
"  them  that  believe."    God  begets  men  to  a  new  life  by  the 


295 

word  of  truth  and  saves  them  by  the  belief  of  that  truth, 
M  for  how  shall  they  believe  on  Him  of  whom  they  have 
"  not  heard  and  how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher  ?" 
(Rom.  10 ;   14.) 

Any  discussion  in  respect  to  the  salvation  of  infants,  in- 
capables  and  exceptional  cases  of  heathen,  through  the 
working  of  the  Spirit,  is  immaterial  here — no  question  is 
raised  in  the  charges  in  reference  to  them.  The  matter 
in  hand  is  wholly  different.  Can  one  having  the  Bible  and 
rejecting  it  find  the  way  to  God  through  either  Church  or 
Reason  ?  The  Bible  teaches  that  those  possessing  the 
revealed  truth  which  it  contains  are  saved  through  belief 
in  that  truth,  and  not  otherwise.  The  Holy  Spirit  has 
given  the  Bible  to  enlighten  men  savingly,  and  it  is  hardly 
to  be  supposed  that  He  will  enlighten  in  other  ways  those 
who  reject  the  Holy  Scripture,  or  find  it  an  unsatisfactory 
source  of  comfort.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Church  and 
Reason,  apart  from  the  Bible,  by  which  the  Spirit  can 
savingly  enlighten  men.  He  bears  witness  by  and  with 
the  Word  in  the  hearts  of  those  who  believe  unto  salvation. 
Albert  Barnes  states  very  truly  on  1  Peter,  1  :  23  :  "  It  is 
**  the  uniform  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  that  divine  truth 
11  is  made  the  instrument  of  quickening  the  soul  unto 
"  spiritual  life." 

The  same  is  true  in  reference  to  the  question  of  cer- 
tainty. Assurance  stands  solely  on  the  truth  of  Scripture, 
on  God's  promises.  Christian  assurance,  resting  on  a  firm 
belief  in  doctrines  respecting  Christ  and  salvation,  must 


296 

stand  or  fall  with  faith  in  Scripture's  truth.  It  is  absurd  to 
suppose,  and  dangerous  to  teach,  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
would  give  this  assurance  through  Church  or  Reason  to 
those  who  either  reject  or  turn  away  from  the  Holy 
Scripture.  As  Albert  Barnes  states  in  2  Thess.,  2:  13: 
"  No  one  who  is  not  a  believer  in  the  truth  can  have 
"  evidence  that  God  has  chosen  him." 

That  the  Holy  Scriptures  claim  for  themselves  supreme 
authority  in  matters  of  faith  and  life  is  indicated  by  texts 
which  we  have  cited  in  connection  with  these  two  charges 
and  their  specifications.  These  texts  are  to  be  taken  in 
their  obvious  meaning,  and  not  in  the  strained  interpreta- 
tion which  Dr.  Briggs  puts  upon  them. 

Christ  and  the  New  Testament  writers  invariably  appeal 
to  the  Holy  Scripture  as  the  ultimate  authority  for  the 
settlement  of  all  religious  and  moral  questions.  "It  is 
M  written  "  was  with  them  a  final  settlement,  since  for  them 
God  speaks  in  what  is  written.  Christ  convicted  the 
rationalistic  Sadducees  of  error  respecting  the  resurrection, 
and  the  churchly  Pharisees  of  error  respecting  divorce,  due 
in  each  case  to  ignorance  of  the  Scriptures.  (Mt.  22  : 
29;  19:  3-6.) 

With  Christ  and  the  Apostles  the  Bible  alone  held  the 
place  of  absolute  and  final  authority.  They  never  ap- 
pealed to  either  Church  or  Reason,  but  brought  both 
Church  and  Reason  to  the  bar  of  Scripture  for  judgment 
and  light. 


297 

In  harmony  with  this  truth  of  Scripture,  our  Standards 
as  cited  by  us  affirm  that  "  the  whole  counsel  of  God 
"  concerning  all  things  necessary  for  His  own  glory  and 
M  man's  salvation,  faith  and  life,  is  either  expressly  set 
"  down  in  Scripture,  or  by  good  and  necessary  con- 
"  sequence  maybe  deduced  from  Scripture,"  so  that  all 
who  will  may  become  savingly  acquainted  with  God  and 
gain  assurance  of  his  love  ;  that  the  Holy  Scripture  is 
"  most  necessary"  as  it  makes  the  full  discovery  of  the 
"  only  way  "  of  man's  salvation,  the  Holy  Spirit  bearing 
witness  "  by  and  with  the  word"  in  the  heart  for  the  con- 
version and  comfort  of  the  soul ;  and  that  all  matters  of 
religion  are  to  be  authoritatively  settled  by  an  appeal  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  since  the  Holy  Spirit  speaks  in  them 
as  the  "  Supreme  Judge." 

Dr.  Briggs'  teachings  conflict  with  both  Scripture  and 
the  Standards.  They  touch  matters  which  are  vitally 
essential  to  Presbyterians,  whose  faith  and  practice  are 
based  solely  on  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture. 

According  to  these  views  we  must  recognize  the  Church 
of  Rome  as  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority,  able  to 
give  men,  without  or  above  the  Bible,  a  saving  knowl- 
edge of  God  and  divine  assurance.  This  would  be  a 
complete  abandonment  of  the  Reformation  position  ;  and 
for  the  Presbyterian  Church  it  would  mean  denomina- 
tional suicide.  Whether  or  not  Dr.  Briggs  would  regard 
this  as  in  any  sense  a  calamity,  cannot  be  determined 
with  certainty,  for  he  regards  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the 


298 

hour,  in  the  interest  of  the  broadest  comprehension, 
to  destroy  all  denominational  barriers  which  separate 
Protestants,  and  to  form  an  "  alliance  between  Protest- 
u  antism  and  Romanism  and  all  other  branches  of  Chris- 
"  tendom."     (Whither,  p.  XI.) 

The  positions  taken  in  his  Inaugural  certainly  en- 
title him  to  the  dignity  of  chief  Apostle  in  such  a  move- 
ment. 

Dr.  Briggs'  teachings  respecting  the  Reason  are  even 
worse  than  those  respecting  the  Church.  In  referring  to 
Martineau  as  an  illustration,  he  has  made  his  meaning 
unmistakable.  Martineau's  late  work  shows  that  he  re- 
jects the  entire  Bible  as  a  revelation  from  God,  and  all 
the  distinctive  doctrines  of  grace,  rejects  Christ  Himself 
as  Lord  and  Saviour,  and  consigns  the  account  of  His  In- 
carnation, Resurrection  and  other  miraculous  events  to 
the  wonders  of  an  invented  Messianic  Mythology  or  pop- 
ular apotheosis.  The  Bible  states  :  "  That  if  thou  shalt 
"  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  be- 
**  lieve  in  thy  heart  that  God  hath  raised  Him  from  the 
"  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved."  (Rom.  10:  9.)  Christ  de- 
clared :  "  If  ye  believe  not  that  I  am  He,  ye  shall  die  in 
"  your  sins."  (Jno.  8  :  24.)  "  Whosoever  shall  deny 
u  Me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my  Father 
11  which  is  in  Heaven."  (Mt.  10  :  33.)  "  No  man  cometh 
"  to  the  Father  but  by  Me."  (Jno.  14  :  61.)  Martineau, 
therefore,  in  refusing  to  believe  in  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  and  in  rejecting  the  Saviour,  puts  himself  among 


299 

those  to  whom  Christ  and  the  Scripture  deny  salvation. 
Yet  Dr.  Briggs,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  these  facts, 
states,  in  his  Defence  :  "  It  is  plain  to  me  that  Martineau 
"  has  gained  a  higher  stage  of  Christian  freedom  and 
"  direct  communion  with  God,  and  it  is  immaterial  how 
"  he  gained  it."     (Defence  p.  67.) 

If  men  of  that  type  are  to  be  heralded  as  representative 
Christian  men,  if  after  rejecting  Christ  and  the  Scripture, 
they  have  entered  into  friendly  communion  with  God  and 
obtained  divine  assurance  through  the  forms  of  the 
Reason,  then  our  entire  Church  life  and  activity  is  a  mis- 
take and  of  all  men  we  are  most  miserable.  It  would  be 
wise  to  close  our  Churches  and  Theological  Seminaries 
and  to  devote  our  money  to  causes  better  adapted  to 
human  advancement  than  Home  and  Foreign  Missions 
can  be. 

Surely  it  is  clear  that  the  final  judgment  of  the  New 
York  Presbytery  on  the  first  and  second  charges,  is  not 
in  accordance  with  the  law  and  evidence  in  the  case,  and 
that  it  should  be  reversed. 

The  Truthfulness  of  the  Bible. 
The  third  charge  has  reference  to  the  subject  of  inspira- 
tion. In  it  Dr.  Briggs  is  charged  with  teaching  that 
errors  may  have  existed  in  the  original  text  of  Scripture, 
as  it  came  from  its  authors.  Dr.  Briggs  admits  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  facts  cited  in  the  specifications,  and  that 
the  charge  correctly  states  his  teaching  on  this  point, 
but  denies  that  it  is  an  offence. 


300 

Our  Standards  assert  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the 
Word  of  God  ;  therefore  to  say  that  there  may  have  been 
errors  in  the  original  text,  is  to  assert  that  God  may  have 
put  into  that  text  that  which  is  not  true. 

Dr.  Briggs'  view  of  inspiration  does  not  give  assurance 
of  entire  truthfulness  in  the  genuine  text  of  the  Holy 
Scripture.  On  the  contrary,  it  enables  him  to  teach,  as 
we  shall  show  from  the  evidence  submitted,  that  the  gen- 
uine text  of  the  Bible  contains  errors. 

It  is  in  evidence  that  Dr.  Briggs  maintains  three  prop- 
ositions in  regard  to  the  Holy  Scripture  which,  if  true, 
render  not  merely  possible,  but  even  quite  certain,  that 
errors  pervade  its  contents.  They  are  vitally  connected 
with  his  view  on  this  question. 

i .  He  contends  that  instead  of  saying  the  Scriptures 
are  the  Word  of  God,  the  true  statement  is,  that  they 
"contain"  the  Word  of  God,  using  that  expression  not 
in  the  Shorter  Catechism  sense  which  is  equivalent  to  the 
statement  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  Word  of  God,  but 
in  the  sense,  that  some  parts  of  their  contents  are  not  the 
Word  of  God.  (The  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason, 
P-  99). 

2.  He  makes  the  anti-confessional  statement  that  there 
are  in  the  Holy  Scripture  certain  circumstantial  and  non- 
essential elements  which,  whether  inspired  or  not, 
are  pervaded  by  errors.  (Inaugural,  pp.  35,  36.) 
In    our    Standards    some    portions    of    the    Bible    are 


301 

regarded  as  more  important  than  others  ;    but  all  alike 
are  regarded  as  truly  inspired  and  entirely  truthful. 

3.  He  affirms  that  not  the  language  of  the  Bible  but 
the  concept  or  thought  conveyed  by  the  language  is  in- 
spired.    (Inaugural,  pp.  31,  32.) 

In  his  view  "  we  cannot  term  the  providential  care  of 
"  God  over  the  external  production  of  His  Word  "  inspi- 
ration.    (Inaugural,  pp.  31,  32.     Biblical  Study,  p.  161.) 

Thus  the  entire  text  of  the  Bible  from  beginning  to  end 
is  exclusively  of  human  and  not  of  divine  origin.  It  is 
the  human  setting  in  which  the  "  divine  jewel  "  of  the 
substance  of  the  thought  or  the  concept  is  held.  The 
writers  of  the  Bible  received  concepts  0/  divine  truth 
which  they  were  left  to  dress  up  in  human  language.  The 
Bible  is  therefore  only  the  fallible  expression  of  divine 
truth  of  which  the  concepts  were  imparted  to  the  writers 
by  God.  As  no  one  has  ever  seen  or  known  those  con- 
cepts in  their  naked  reality,  we  can  never  be  entirely  cer- 
tain, according  to  Dr.  Briggs,  that  the  human  authors  of 
the  Bible  received  anything  more  than  a  fallible  impression 
of  the  truth.  At  all  events,  if  the  divine  inspiration  did  not 
extend  to  the  language  of  the  Bible  then  the  revelation 
which  God  made  to  the  writers  perished  with  them.  The 
record  of  that  revelation  at  least  is  only  human  and  fallible 
and  the  Scriptures  are  but  the  human  account  of  the  Word 
of  God — not  that  Word  itself.  If  so  the  Bible  is  only  one 
of  the  many  good  books  which  contain  divine  truth,  and 


302 

is  not  the  Book  of  books,  which  Christians  have  always 
considered  it  to  be. 

Holding  such  views,  Dr.  Briggs  naturally  enough 
teaches  that  the  genuine  text  of  Scripture  may  contain 
errors  and  he  need  find  no  difficulty  in  holding  that  it 
must  contain  errors  since  nothing  human  is  free  trom 
error. 

So  after  having  pointed  out  a  number  of  cases  of 
what  he  regards  as  biblical  errors,  Dr.  Briggs  states 
(Defence,  p.  114),  "  The  number  of  such  instances  as  I 
"  have  given  above  might  be  increased  to  an  indefinite 
"  extent,  extending  over  a  large  part  of  the  Old  Testa - 
"  ment  and  the  New  Testament." 

Dr.  Briggs  teaches  then  that  the  number  of  errors  in 
the  Bible  extending  over  large  parts  of  both  Testaments, 
is  very  great,  and  the  connection  clearly  shows  that  he 
holds  those  errors  to  be  in  the  genuine  text  of  Scripture. 
This  conclusion  is  supported  by  the  evidence  in  the  case, 
for  he  states,  in  The  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason  : 
"  These  human  features  render  it  improbable  that  the 
"  Bible  should  be  free  from  errors  in  its  human  setting.  *  * 
"  How  could  it  be  otherwise  if  the  divine  revelation  was 
• '  to  come  through  such  men  as  the  ancient  times  were 
"  capable  of  producing  ?  Holy  Scripture  does  not  claim 
"inerrancy  in  its  human  setting,  and  it  does  not  in  fact 
11  possess  it."  (p.  108.)  Further  on  he  states:  "The 
"  Evangelist  seems  to  have  overlooked  the  fact  that  one 
"  of  these  passages  is  from  Malachi  3:1.     Here  are  two 


303 

"slips  of  memory  on  the  part  of  the  Evangelists,  such 
"as  any  writer  is  liable  to  make."  (The  Bible,  the 
Church  and  the  Reason,  p.  109.) 

It  will  be  conceded  that  what  the  Evangelists  wrote 
belonged  to  the  genuine  text  of  Scripture,  yet,  according 
to  Dr.  Briggs,  such  a  text  is  marred  by  errors  of  memory. 
It  is  clear  that  inspiration,  as  understood  by  Dr.  Briggs, 
did  not  keep  the  writers  of  the  Bible  from  making  such 
errors  "  as  other  men  are  liable  to  make." 

This  doctrine  of  Dr.  Briggs  conflicts  irreconcilably  with 
the  doctrine  respecting  the  Holy  Scripture  as  formulated 
in  the  Standards  of  our  Church.  There  it  is  affirmed  that 
the  writings,  not  the  concept  merely,  were  inspired 
throughout,  and  that  they  are  entirely  truthful  for  the 
reason  that  they  are  inspired. 

In  regard  to  the  text  of  the  Bible,  as  we  have  it,  the 
Confession  makes  mention  of  the  marvelous  fact  that  by 
God's  "  singular  care  and  providence  "  it  has  been  "  kept 
"  pure  in  all  ages  ";  but  of  the  genuine  text  it  affirms  that 
M  the  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew,  and  the  New  Testament 
"in  Greek  were  immediately  inspired  by  God."  Of  the 
one,  as  cared  for  by  the  singular  providence  of  God  it 
affirms  relative  accuracy,  for  the  general  providential  care 
of  God  does  keep  men  from  all  error ;  but  of  the  other, 
as  coming  immediately  from  God,  it  asserts  absolute 
accuracy,  as  we  shall  see. 

The  Confession  states  that  the  Scripture,  in  its  genuine 
text,  was  committed  "wholly  unto  writing"  by  the  Lord 


304 

Himself,  so  that  the  entire  series  of  canonical  books  con- 
stitute the  one  "  Holy  Scripture,"  or  "  the  Word  of  God 
11  written,"  having  all  of  them  been  "given  by  inspiration 
"  of  God  to  be  the  rule  of  faith  and  life."     And  it  further 
declares  that  "the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  for 
"which  it  ought  to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth 
"  wholly  upon  God  (who  is  truth  itself)  the  author  thereof; 
"  and  therefore  it  is  to  be  received,  because  it  is  the  word 
"  of  God."     And  this  declaration  is  made  in  reference  to 
the  entire  written  contents  of  all  the  canonical  books. 
The  books  were  written  by  men,  yet  the  God  of  truth 
is   in  such  a  deep  sense  their  author,    that   everything 
written  therein  is  to  be  received,   believed  and  obeyed 
because  it  is  His  word.     A  statement  so  sweeping  and 
solemn  could  not  be  made  if  the  Scriptures  were    only 
partially  inspired  and  were  mixed  with  error.     But  that 
the  Confession  does  not  tolerate  the  idea  of  the  presence 
of  errors  in  the  Holy  Scripture  is  still   further   evident 
from  the  fact  that  the  "  entire  perfection  "  of  the  Scripture 
is  given  as  proof  that  it  is  the  word  of  God,  while  the 
assertion  is  made  that  the  Holy  Spirit  assures  the  believer 
of  the   "infallible   truth   and   divine   authority  thereof.'' 
A  book  which  contains  errors  cannot  have  the  quality 
of  "  entire  perfection "  and  the    Holy    Spirit  could   not 
assure  us  of  its  "  infallible  truth."     Our  Standards  teach 
the  truthfulness  of  the  entire  written  Bible  because  it  is 
the  "very  word"  of  the^God  of  truth. 

This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scripture  itself.     That 
Scripture   claims   full   inspiration    throughout    for    both 


305 

matter  and  form.  If  the  inspiration  stopped  in  the 
writer  and  did  not  extend  through  him  to  the  language,  then 
are  the  writings  themselves  not  inspired  and  we  have  no 
Holy  Scripture. 

But  the  Bible  affirms  inspiration  of  the  language  as  well 
as  of  the  thought.  ••  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration 
"of  God,''  not  merely  the  substance  of  truth,  but  the 
Scripture  or  writing  itself.  And  it  matters  not  whether 
we  take  the  rendering  of  the  Revised  Version,  "  every 
"Scripture"  or  the  "all  Scripture"  of  the  Authorized 
Version,  for  the  word  Scripture  was  used  only  of  inspired 
writings,  and  we  must  take  it  in  the  obvious  sense  in 
which  Paul  employed  it.  There  can  be  no  question  that 
he  meant  the  entire  Old  Testament,  all  of  which  Timothy 
had  known  from  his  childhood,  and  recognized  as  en- 
tirely God-inspired. 

Again  the  Scripture  states  that  "God,  who  at  sundry 
"  times  and  in  divers  manners  spake  in  time  past  unto 
"  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days 
"  spoken  to  us  by  His  Son.'7  (Heb.  i  :  1,2.)  God,  then, 
dfd  not  speak  merely  to  the  prophets  and  His  Son,  but  by 
them,  through  them,  to  men.  He. not  only  revealed  truth  to 
them,  but  controlled  their  language  in  conveying  the  truth. 
It  is  also  evident  that  what  God  delivered  by  the  prophets 
is  put  on  an  equality  with  what  He  spake  "to  us  by  His 
"  Son."  It  is  all  His  Word  commended  to  our  faith  by 
the  same  divine  authority.  The  entire  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  carries  out  this  idea  that  the  statements  of 
Scripture  are  the  sayings  of  God. 


306 

Peter  and  Paul  unite  in  affirming  that  both  the  thought 
and  language  of  the  Scripture  are  inspired  :  "  The  prophecy 
11  came  not  in  the  old  time  by  the  will  of  man ;  but  holy 
11  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
"  Ghost.''     (2  Pet.  i  :  21.) 

Paul  declares  :  "  Now  we  have  received,  not  the  spirit 
11  of  the  world,  but  the  Spirit  which  is  of  God  ;  that  we 
"  might  know  the  things  which  are  freely  given  to  us  of 
"  God.  Which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in  words  which 
"  mans  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
"  teacheth."1  It  is  then  the  positive  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures  themselves  that  their  entire  contents  are  in- 
spired, both  in  respect  to  matter  and  form. 

In  the  New  Testament,  a  large  number  of  quotations 
from  the  Old  Testament  are  attributed  to  God  or  the  Holy 
Spirit,  even  when  the  Old  Testament  text  does  not  repre- 
sent them  as  the  speakers.  Even  narrative  parts  are  in 
this  way  attributed  directly  to  God.  Mt.  1:22;  2  :  1 5  ; 
Acts  4  :  25  ;  13  :  34  ;  Rom.  1:2;  Acts  1:16;  28  :  25  ; 
Heb.  3:7;    4:7;    9:8;    10  :  15,  etc. 

In  many  places  the  phrases,  "  it  is  written1''  and 
"  the  Scripture  saith"  are  used  as  equivalent  to  what  God 
says.  The  human  authorship  is  not  excluded.  The 
Scripture  is  the  joint  product  of  a  human  and  divine 
authorship  ;  but  infinite  knowledge  pervades  the  whole 
Scripture,  and  the  human  authorship  was  so  under  the 
control  of  the  divine  that  the  entire  Scripture  bears  the 
stamp  of  divine  authority  and  is  absolutely  reliable. 


307 

Writers  of  the  most  advanced  school  of  Theology  admit 
that  the  authors  of  Scripture  claim  inspiration  for  the  Holy 
Writings  as  such  and  not  merely  for  the  substance  of 
truth  contained  in  them.  Richard  Rothe,  quoted  in  my 
argument  before  the  Presbytery,  is  an  example.  He  says 
of  the  New  Testament  writers  :  "They  see  nothing  in  the 
"  sacred  volume  which  is  simply  the  word  of  its  human 
"  author,  and  not  at  the  same  time  the  very  word  of  God 
"Himself.  *  *  *  They  refer  the  prophetic  inspiration 
"  to  the  actus  scribendi  of  the  biblical  authors." 

The  biblical  writers  also  teach  the  entire  truthfulness  of 
the  Holy  Scripture  for  the  reason  that  it  is  fully  inspired. 
It  is  impossible  for  God  to  lie.  Everywhere  this  is 
assumed  and  arguments  are  enforced  on  it  as  the  basis. 
Paul  supports  an  important  Christological  argument  in 
Gal.  3:16,  on  the  fact  that  the  singular  instead  of  the 
plural  number  of  a  word  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  Word  of  God  "  is  true  from  the  beginning."  Christ 
declared  to  God  in  prayer,  "Thy  word  is  truth,"  and 
affirmed,  "  Till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one 
"  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  ful- 
"  filled.''  (Mt.  5  :  18).  He  based  the  fact  that  a  certain 
statement  had  been  made  in  the  olden  time  on  the  abso- 
lute infallibility  of  the  record  of  the  Scripture,  in  which  it 
is  reported,  when  He  said:  "Is  it  not  written  in  your 
"  law,  I  said,  Ye  are  gods  ?  If  he  called  them  gods,  unto 
"  whom  the  word  of  God  came,  and  the  Scripture  cannot 
"  be  broken."     According,  then,  to  the  infallible  opinion  of 


308 

Jesus  Christ,  absolute  truthfulness  of  any  sentence  or 
statement  is  proved  if  it  be  a  constituent  part  of  the 
Scripture.  Christ  and  the  Apostles  teach  therefore  the 
inerrancy  of  the  entire  written  Word  of  God.  Not  an 
utterance  did  they  make  which  can  warrant  the  belief  on 
our  part  that  they  thought  the  Holy  Scriptures  tainted 
with  errors.  They  referred  to  them  always  as  absolutely 
true,  and  taught  that  disbelief  in  them  is  sin. 

The  full  inspiration  and  the  entire  truthfulness  of  the 
written  Scripture  is  therefore  a  doctrine  which  is  clearly 
taught  in  the  Bible  itself,  and  is  to  be  received,  like  all 
other  biblical  doctrines,  for  the  reason  that  the  Holy 
Scripture  teaches  it.  The  doctrine  is  obtained  from 
Scripture  by  application  of  the  strictest  principles  of 
exegesis  and  by  the  broadest  induction  from  all  the  rele- 
vant facts,  statements,  claims  and  allusions  of  the  Scripture 
in  reference  to  the  subject ;  it  is  supported  by  the  entire 
evidence  showing  the  New  Testament  writers  to  be  trust- 
worthy teachers  of  Christian  doctrine.  Ultimately  this 
evidence  rests  on  the  authority  and  trustworthiness  of 
Christ  Himself,  for  He  refers  us  to  them  for  His  statement 
of  doctrine,  assuring  us  that  He  fitted  the  writers  by 
giving  them  the  Spirit  of  truth,  to  guide  them  into  all  truth 
and  to  teach  them  whatsoever  He  desired  them  to  com- 
municate. 

This  doctrine  of  the  truthfulness  of  the  Scriptures  due 
to  their  full  inspiration,  as  taught  in  the  Bible,  has  been 
held  by  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  from  New  Testament 


309 

times  until  now.  Dr.  Briggs  has  misunderstood  the  faith 
of  the  Church  on  this  point.  All  the  great  historic  names 
which  he  has  cited  in  favor  of  an  errant  Bible  are  on 
record  in  defence  of  the  opposite  doctrine.  Origen, 
Jerome,  Augustine,  Calvin,  Luther,  Baxter  and  the  West- 
minster divines  have  left  their  testimony  that  the  whole 
Bible  is  the  inerrant  word  of  God. 

It  is  preposterous  at  this  late  day  to  advance  the 
claim  that  insisting  on  the  truthfulness  of  the  Bible  is 
tantamount  to  setting  up  a  new  test  of  orthodoxy.  The 
Church  has  never  believed  anything  else.  Especially  is 
this  true  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  It  will  not  be 
possible  to  point  to  a  single  representative  Presbyterian 
divine,  from  the  Westminster  period  down,  and  especially 
among  American  Presbyterians,  who  has  taught  the  doc- 
trine of  the  errancy  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  All  sides, 
parties  and  schools  in  our  Church  have  been  agreed  in 
affirming  the  inerrancy  of  the  Word  of  God.  Green, 
Alexander  and  Hodge  cordially  unite  with  Richards  and 
Barnes  in  subscribing  to  the  statement  of  Dr.  Henry  B. 
Smith  that  inspiration  extends  to  both  thoughts  and 
words  and  gives  us  "  truth  without  error  "  in  the  Bible. 
Our  Church  has  always  held  that,  when  we  have  deter- 
mined the  exact  historic-grammatical  meaning  of  a  state- 
ment in  the  Bible,  we  have  then  the  absolute  truthfulness 
of  that  statement  certified  to  us  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

The  issue  before  this  Assembly  is  whether  or  not  the 
Presbyterian  Church  will  abandon  the  historic  faith  of  the 


310 

Church  of  Jesus  Christ  and  affix  its  imprimatur  to  the 
doctrine  that  the  Bible  is  permeated  with  errors  to  "  an 
"  indefinite  extent.'' 

To  sum  up,  the  teaching  of  Dr.  Briggs  in  this  matter 
constitutes  an  offence  as  defined  in  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
for  several  reasons  : 

i.  It  conflicts  with  the  teaching  of  both  Scripture  and 
Confession. 

2.  If  this  teaching  be  true,  the  Holy  Scripture  can- 
not be  an  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  since,  ac- 
cording to  it,  we  cannot  say  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of 
God,  but  only  that  it  co?itains  the  Word  of  God.  Webster 
defines  the  word  infallible  as  "  not  fallible  ;  not  capable  of 
"  erring  ;  entirely  exempt  from  liability  to  mistake  ;  un- 
"  erring  ;  inerrable."  In  plain  English,  therefore,  a  book 
which  is  pervaded  by  errors  "to  an  indefinite  extent," 
cannot  be  an  infallible  rule.  It  lacks  the  one  essential 
of  infallibility,  viz.,  absolute  truthfulness  for  all  its 
contents. 

3.  This  teaching  subjects  the  Bible  to  the  reason.  For 
if  the  Scripture  has  any  erroneous  circumstantials,  and  if 
the  entire  visible  text  is  simply  human,  each  man  must 
determine  for  himself  by  his  own  reason  or  conscience 
how  much  may  be  accepted  as  the  Word  of  God.  Thus 
the  Bible  can  have  practically  no  objective  authority,  for 
it  will  have  to  each  man  only  such  authority  as  he  may 
be  pleased  to  accord  it. 

4.  It  undermines  the  trustworthiness  of  the  whole 
Bible.     For  if  the  writers  of  the  Holy  Scripture  were  not 


311 

enabled  to  make  correct  statements  on  matters  of  history 
and  every-day  occurrence,  in  which  it  is  comparatively 
easy  to  avoid  errors,  most  men  must  feel  that  the  state- 
ments of  such  writers  respecting  the  more  difficult  ques- 
tions of  faith  and  morals  are  unworthy  of  acceptance. 

Furthermore,  the  doctrine  of  the  truthfulness  of  the 
Holy  Scripture  is  supported  by  the  entire  evidence,  which 
commends  all  its  other  doctrines  to  our  faith.  If  this 
evidence  is  not  trustworthy  in  the  case  of  one,  it  is  not 
trustworthy  in  respect  of  any  doctrine. 

The  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery,  therefore,  on 
this  charge,  is  not  in  accord  with  the  law  and  testimony 
in  the  case,  and  it  should  be  reversed. 

Genuineness  and  Authenticity. 

I.  In  the  fourth  charge,  the  fifth  of  the  amended  series, 
relating  to  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, Dr.  Briggs  is  charged  with  denying  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  He  admits  that  both  speci- 
fication and  charge  are  accurate,  but  denies  that  his  teach- 
ing on  this  point  constitutes  an  offence. 

In  his  Response  to  the  original  charges  and  specifica- 
tions, Dr.  Briggs  affirmed  that  Mosaic  history,  Mosaic  in- 
stitutions and  Mosaic  legislation  lie  at  the  base  of  all  the 
original  documents.  In  his  Defence  he  asserts  that  a 
Mosaic  code  exists  in  Chapters  12  to  26  of  Deuteronomy ; 
that  some  Mosaic  laws  are  contained  in  Chapters  20  to  23 
of  Exodus,  and  that  some  general  principles  for  direction 


312 

to  the  priesthood  were  given  by  Moses,  the  place  of 
which  he  does  not  indicate.  (Who  Wrote  the  Penta- 
teuch? pp.  23,  i58,  159.) 

This  legislation,  however,  was  merely  rudimentary. 
The  Pentateuch,  as  we  have  it,-  was  a  development. 
Deuteronomy  did  not  attain  its  present  form  until  in  the 
times  of  King  Josiah  ;  the  Priest  code  not  until  the  times 
of  Ezra,  and  the  code  of  holiness  came  "  into  the  historic 
"  field  first  in  connection  with  Ezekiel."  (Who  Wrote 
the  Pentateuch?  pp.  124,  i5j.)  Yet,  because  a  few 
rudimentary  laws  given  by  Moses  were  the  basis  of 
the  small  original  documents,  we  are  told  that  "  the 
11  name  of  Moses  pervades  the  Pentateuch  as  a  sweet 
"  fragrance." 

Dr.  Briggs  maintains  that  such  elaborate  codes  as  those 
of  the  Pentateuch  could  not  have  originated  in  the  early 
national  existence  of  Israel.  "  Several  generations  are 
u  necessary,"  he  says,  "to  account  for  such  a  series  of 
"  modifications  of  the  same  law."  (Who  Wrote  the 
Pentateuch  ?  p.  106.)  Again  he  states :  "  There 
11  seems  to  be  no  room  for  them  (the  laws),  in 
"  the  times  of  Moses  or  Joshua  or  Samuel  or  David. 
"  The  providential  historical  circumstances  did  not  admit 
"  of  obedience  to  such  elaborate  codes  before  we  find 
"  them  in  the  history  of  the  times  of  Josiah  and  Ezra. 
"  A  priestly  code  seems  to  require  its  historical  origin  in 
"  a  dominant  priesthood.     A  prophetic  code  seems  best 


313 

"  to  originate  in  a  period  when  prophets  were  in  the  pre- 
"  eminence.  A  theocratic  code  suits  best  a  prosperous 
"  Kingdom  and  a  period  when  elders  and  judges  were  in 
"  authority."     (Who  Wrote  the  Pentateuch?  p.  124.) 

Thus  Dr.  Briggs  declares  the  great  body  of  laws  and 
regulations  which  are  contained  in  the  Pentateuch  to  be 
not  merely  post-Mosaic  in  origin,  but  to  be  post-Mosaic 
by  several  centuries,  so  that,  naturally  enough,  he  can 
call  the  Pentateuch  an  "  anonymous  "  book,  and  Deuter- 
onomy a  "  pseudonym."  He  reaches  this  result  by  using 
processes  based  on  naturalism  and  evolution,  which 
enable  him  to  determine  at  what  period  in  the  history  of 
Israel  the  literature  and  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  could  have 
arisen  and  come  to  their  present  form.  By  the  same 
processes,  he  is  enabled  to  declare  the  laws  of  the  Penta- 
teuchal  Codes  mutually  inconsistent  (Who  Wrote  the 
Pentateuch  ?  pp.  101,  etc.) ;  and  to  speak  of  the  histories 
of  the  patriarchs,  as  well  as  some  later  Mosaic  history,  as 
stories  derived  from  an  unreliable  tradition.  (Who 
Wrote  the  Pentateuch  ?  pp.  75,  79.) 

Dr.  Briggs  informs  us  that  these  results  are  endorsed 
by  a  virtual  consensus  of  biblical  scholarship.  This  we 
deny.  A  large  number  of  biblical  scholars  does  not  con- 
sent. All  the  leading  names  in  the  list,  given  by  Dr. 
Briggs,  are,  in  my  opinion,  not  biblical,  but  anti-biblical 
scholars,  since  they  deny  the  presence  of  the  Supernatural 
in  the  Bible  ;  and  the  rest  do  not  hold  to  a  true  doctrine 
of  inspiration. 


314 

But  there  is  in  fact  no  consensus  among  the  higher 
critics  in  regard  to  the  source  of  the  Pentateuchal  docu- 
ments, their  number,  the  times  of  their  composition,  and 
the  results  reached  from  an  investigation  of  them.  And 
when  further,  we  remember  that  the  higher  critics  con- 
duct their  inquiry  by  principles  which  are  purely  sub- 
jective to  themselves,  and  that  the  results  which  they 
have  reached  are  not  only  contrary  to  all  known  historical 
facts,  but  also  to  the  obvious  teaching  of  the  Word  of 
God,  it  is  preposterous  to  ask  Christian  people  to  put 
confidence  in  their  conclusions. 

Criticism  of  this  type  ignores  the  one  great  fact  in  the 
life  and  history  of  Israel,  which  harmonizes  and  veri- 
fies everything  in  the  Pentateuch  as  the  work  of  Moses  ;  it 
fails  to  recognize  the  visible  presence  of  Jehovah  with  the 
Israelites  to  control  their  entire  national  life,  whether  civil 
or  religious. 

The  Holy  Scripture,  as  shown  by  the  texts  appended 
to  the  specification  of  this  charge,  gives  an  account  of  the 
origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  altogether  different  from  that 
given  by  Dr.  Briggs. 

The  Pentateuch  itself  points  to  Moses  as  its  author.  It 
speaks  of  him  as  a  maker  of  books,  in  which  he  wrote 
history  and  laws  by  the  command  of  Jehovah. 

A  great  part  of  the  document  is  ascribed  to  the  pen  of 
Moses.  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers  and  Deuteronomy 
are  credited  to  him,  as  the  medium  through  whom  God 


315 

communicated  them  to  his  people,  when  Israel  was  in  the 
Wilderness,  and  when  Aaron  and  Eliezer  were  high- 
priests.  The  laws  of  all  the  codes  appear  in  the  Penta- 
teuch as  a  unit  on  the  background  of  Israel's  wilderness 
life,  not  mutually  conflicting,  but  mutually  supplementary 
to  each  other. 

It  is  conceded  that  Genesis  has  a  common  authorship 
with  the  other  four  books.  So  that  we  must  accept  the 
conclusion  that  the  Pentateuch  claims  Moses  as  its  author. 
Scholars  like  Kuenen  freely  admit  this. 

If  this  claim  be  not  true,  then  the  Pentateuch  is  neither 
genuine  nor  authentic,  and  it  must  be  untrustworthy.  If 
the  Pentateuch's  claim  of  Mosaic  authorship  be  false,  and 
the  work  originated  piece  by  piece  during  centuries  after 
the  death  of  Moses,  the  document  as  it  has  come  to  us  is 
a  fraud,  and  no  dependence  can  be  placed  upon  it. 

Dr.  Briggs  would  have  us  believe  that  a  book  thus 
constructed  may  still  be  spoken  of  as  inspired.  Thus  he 
says,  on  page  121  of  the  Defence:  "If  Ezra  can  be 
"  shown  to  be  responsible  for  our  present  Pentateuch,  is 
M  he  not  as  truly  a  well-known  biblical  and  inspired 
"  man  and  as  capable  of  producing  a  rule  of  faith  and 
M  practice  as  Moses  ?  "  Well,  we  should  say  not.  For 
we  would  have  to  change  our  ideas  completely,  not 
only  of  Ezra,  but  of  inspiration,  to  suppose  that  he,  as 
an  inspired  man,  could  palm  off  on  a  credulous  people,  a 
piece  of  deceit  and  fraud  as  the  truth  of  God.  If  Ezra 
could  do  that,  then  we  say  without  hesitation  that  he  was 


316 

not  as  capable  of  producing  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice  as 
Moses. 

Inspiration,  as  understood  by  Dr.  Briggs,  is  clearly  not 
that  kind  of  inspiration  which  will  keep  the  inspired  writer 
from  making  mistakes  or  telling  lies. 

But  the  Pentateuch  is  not  alone  in  asserting  that  Moses 
is  its  author.  The  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
concur  in  that  claim.  The  entire  body  of  the  Mosaic  leg- 
islation seems  to  have  been  in  existence  immediately 
after  the  death  of  Moses  in  the  times  of  Joshua,  for  the 
people  are  commanded  by  the  Lord  to  guide  their  life 
and  conduct  by  it.  The  Book  of  Joshua  gives  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  at  that  time  of  Mosaic  regulations, 
which  Dr.  Briggs  assigns  to  succeeding  centuries  ;  as,  for 
instance,  the  command  to  the  3*^  tribes  to  help  their 
brethren  in  conquering  the  land  (1:13),  the  rule  that  the 
Levites  should  have  no  inheritance  (13:14) ;  that  Hebron 
should  be  given  to  Caleb  (14:6) ;  that  the  land  should  be 
divided  by  lot  (14:2) ;  that  cities  of  refuge  should  be  set 
apart ;  and  many  other  regulations.  The  same  can  be 
said  of  the  other  preexilic  books,  especially  of  Hosea  and 
Amos,  and  of  some  of  the  Davidic  Psalms.  They  testify 
to  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  laws  as  a  whole  by  direct 
statements,  and  by  revelations  of  the  life  and  customs  of 
the  people  in  their  respective  periods.  Indeed,  all  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  testify  in  favor  of  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Wellhausen  says  that  in  the  time  of  Chronicles,  Moses 


317 

was  already  taken  to  be  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch. 
(Encyclopedia  Britannica.     Pentateuch.) 

It  must  then  either  have  existed  and  been  believed  in  as 
Mosaic  in  the  time  of  the  Kings  before  the  Exile  as  the 
book  states  ;  or  the  account  must  have  been  worked  into 
Chronicles  fictitiously  by  Ezra  after  the  Exile.  If  the 
latter  supposition  be  true,  as  the  critics  assert,  then  Ezra 
perpetrated  a  fraud ;  and  he  did  it  so  well  that  not  only 
did  none  of  his  learned  contemporaries  detect  it,  but 
neither  Jews  nor  Christians  for  many  centuries  since  then 
had  the  slightest  suspicion  of  its  being  a  fraud. 

The  Jewish  people  for  3,000  years  have  given  their 
united  testimony  in  behalf  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch.  The  Christian  Church  has  always  united  in 
that  testimony.  This  singular  unanimity  of  God's  people 
on  this  question  for  so  many  centuries  is  of  such  great 
value  that  it  cannot  be  sneered  out  of  Court  as  mere 
traditionalism. 

Such  a  consensus  is  not  to  be  cast  aside  for  the  trivial 
reason  that  it  does  not  accord  with  the  subjective  impres- 
sions of  the  higher  critics,  which  impressions  are  those  of 
men  as  fallible  as  the  rest  of  us. 

Prof.  Thayer,  of  Harvard,  himself  a  progressive  critic, 
says  that  the  recent  discovery  of  the  Gospel  according  to 
Peter  "  affords  conjectural  criticism  some  edifying  lessons." 
He  states,  it  "consigns  the  staple  of  books  like  *  Super- 
11  natural  Religion,'  with  their  conjectural  criticism  on  the 
"  Gospels,  'to  the  Museum  of  biblical  antiquities.'" 


318 

Conjectural  criticism  on  the  Pentateuch  is  likely  to  be 
consigned  some  day  to  the  same  museum  of  biblical  an- 
tiquities. It  has  not  established  its  claim  to  our  confidence. 
For  not  all  of  those  who  use  it  attain  to  good  results 
when  working  in  fields  where  the  rest  of  us  can  follow. 

Thus  Dr.  Briggs  has  misapprehended  completely  the 
teaching  of  the  Fathers,  Reformers,  and  Westminster 
divines  respecting  the  truthfulness  of  the  Bible.  If  he 
has  not  been  unable  to  understand  them  on  a  point  which 
they  make  so  clear,  how  can  we  trust  ourselves  to  him  in 
the  more  difficult  task  of  ascertaining  what  kind  of  He- 
brew history  and  doctrine,  holy  inspired  men  ought  to 
have  written  in  the  Bible  ? 

But  Christ  and  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  give 
unqualified  testimony  to  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch.  When  speaking  of  "  the  law,"  "  the  law  of 
Moses"  "  the  book  of  Moses"  and  "Moses  writings"  they 
used  those  terms,  in  the  accepted  meanings  of  that  time, 
as  referring  to  the  entire  Pentateuch.  They  charged 
the  Jews  with  sin  in  not  believing  and  obeying  what 
Moses  had  written.  They  accepted  and  endorsed  the 
belief  of  the  Jews  that  Moses  was  responsible  for  the 
whole  Pentateuch. 

Christ  refers  to  Moses  by  name  eighteen  times,  not  as 
referring  to  a  book  of  that  name,  but  to  him  personally, 
as  a  great  national  leader,  his  own  forerunner,  who  gave 
laws  and  commandants,  and  also  wrote  of  Him. 


319 

In  assigning  to  Moses  the  patriarchal  institution  of  cir- 
cumcision (John  7:  22);  laws  like  those  concerning 
divorce  (Mark  10:  5)  ;  and  the  account  concerning  the 
burning  bush  (Mark  12:  26) ;  he  credits  Moses  with  be- 
ing the  author  of  the  Pre-Mosaic,  the  legislative  and  the 
historical  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.  That  includes  the  en- 
tire document.  He  certainly  assigns  the  whole  body  of 
Pentateuchal  laws  to  Moses  (Luke  16:  29;  Jno.  7:  19; 
Mt.  8:  14  ;  19:  8  ;  23:  2  ;  John  7:  23) ;  and  never  spoke 
of  any  part  of  the  Pentateuch  in  a  disparaging  way  ;  but 
by  what  he  said  and  did  not  say,  made  it  clear  that  He  re- 
garded the  whole  of  it  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  reliable 
and  true  in  all  its  parts. 

The  higher  critics  feel  the  force  of  this  testimony  of 
Christ,  and  feel  called  upon  to  explain  how  it  is  that  their 
statements  about  the  Pentateuch  are  in  conflict  with  the 
teaching  of  Christ.  Dr.  Briggs  maintains  that  when 
Christ  assigns  a  particular  law  or  statement  to  Moses,  it 
and  no  more  belongs  to  the  great  law-giver.  He  min- 
imizes the  testimony  of  Christ  on  this  point,  thus : 
' '  When  Jesus  uses  Moses  as  another  name  for  the  law  or 
11  Pentateuch,  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  Jesus  meant  to 
"  say  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch."  (Who  Wrote  the 
Pentateuch?  p.  2  5.)  But  why  should  it  not  be  certain  ? 
That  is  what  He  was  understood  to  say,  and  it  certainly 
did  not  behoove  Him,  as  the  great  Teacher  of  truth, 
consciously  to  leave  a  false  impression  on  the  minds  of  His 
hearers. 


320 

The  critics  have  two  ways  of  explaining  this  discrep- 
ancy between  their  teaching  and  that  of  Jesus  Christ : 

i .  One  is,  that  He  knew  Moses  not  to  be  the  author  of 
the  Pentateuch,  but,  since  all  His  contemporaries  believed 
Moses  to  be  its  author,  He  accommodated  Himself  to 
their  belief  and  way  of  speaking. 

Dr.  Briggs  says  :  <;  Jesus  was  not  obliged  to  correct  all 
"the  errors  of  His  contemporaries."  (Who  Wrote  the 
Pentateuch  ?  p.  29.)  Well,  if  that  is  true,  then  it  is  a 
great  pity  that  Dr.  Briggs  did  not  follow  so  good  an  ex- 
ample so  as  not  to  disturb  the  peace  of  a  great  Church. 

But  this  explanation  cannot  be  accepted.  It  would  not 
be  creditable  to  Christ,  especially  from  Dr.  Briggs'  point 
of  view.  For  Dr.  Briggs  holds  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  to  be  one  of  the  barriers  set  up  by  theo- 
logians to  deprive  men  of  the  Bible,  and  states  that  we  shall 
not  be  able  to  see  ' '  the  magnificent  unity  of  the  whole 
"  Bible,  to  capture  all  its  sacred  treasures  and  to  enjoy  all 
"its  heavenly  glories,"  until  this  mischievous  error  is 
removed  from  the  face  of  the  earth  by  the  destructive 
process  of  the  higher  critics.  If  Christ  knew  that  the 
belief  in  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  would 
prevent  the  Bible  from  being  understood  and  would  rob 
people  of  its  treasures  and  heavenly  glories,  then  should 
He  not  have  exploded  that  error  at  once  ?  We  can  believe 
nothing  less  of  Him. 

2.    The  other  and  more  commonly  adopted  view,    is 


321 

that  Christ  did  not  know  the  real  author  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  so  fell  into  the  common  error,  with  His  contempo- 
raries, of  believing  and  teaching  that  Moses  was  its  author. 
He  never  enjoyed  the  advantage  of  going  to  Oxford  or 
to  Germany  to  acquire  a  scientific  and  conjectural  theory 
for  searching  out  the  truth  of  the  Bible.    He  did  not  know 
the  Scriptures,  and   the    higher  critics  do.     Dr.   Briggs 
speaks  approvingly  of  this  theory,  as   follows  :    "  If  we 
"  should  say  Jesus  did  not  know  whether  Moses  wrote 
u  the  Pentateuch  or  not,  we  would  not  go  beyond  His  own 
"  saying  that  He  knew  not  the  time  of  His  own  advent. 
"  Those  who  understand  the  doctrine  of  the  humiliation 
"  of  Christ  and  the  incarnation  of  Christ,  find  no  more 
' '  difficulty  in  supposing   that   Jesus    did    not  know  the 
"  author  of  the  Pentateuch  than  that  He  did  not  know 
"  the  day  of  His  own  advent."     (Who  Wrote  the  Penta- 
teuch ?  pp.  28,  29.)    Conscious  ignorance  of  that  distant 
future  day  is  one  thing  ;  but  the  unconscious  teaching  of 
error  is  quite  another.     The  one  would  not  detract  from 
the  truthful  testimony  of  Christ,  the  other  would.  He  made 
no  disclaimer  of  knowledge  on  this  point,  but  claimed  and 
made  the  impression  that  He  did  know  all  about  the  Pen- 
tateuch and  its  author.     He  is  the  truth.     He  came  into 
the  world  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth,  and  positively  as- 
serted that  He  always  spoke  the  truth.     He  declared  to 
the  Jews  :  "  He  that  sent  me  is  true  ;  and  I  speak  to  the 
"  world  those  things  which  I  have  heard  of  Him.''     Could 
He  affirm  in  a  more  solemn  way  the  entire  truthfulness 
of  all  that  He  said  ? 


322 

The  New  Testament  gives  a  large  amount  of  evidence 
that,  as  sinlessly  perfect  and  as  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  knowledge  of  Christ  was  universal.  And  to  affirm 
that  when  He  declared  Moses  to  be  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch,  He  erred  through  ignorance,  is  a  reflection 
upon  His  mental  as  well  as  upon  His  moral  character, 
which  discredits  the  New  Testament  representation  of 
Him  as  in  all  respects  perfect. 

This  teaching  of  Dr.  Briggs  in  regard  to  the  non-Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  is  in  vital  conflict  with  the 
teaching  of  the  whole  Bible.  It  necessarily  involves  the 
positions  that  the  Pentateuch,  as  we  have  it,  is  not  only 
erroneous,  but  also  fraudulent ;  that  the  writers  of  the 
other  Old  Testament  books  either  knowingly  connived 
at  the  fraud,  or  unintentionally  perpetuated  it ;  and  that 
the  testimony  of  Christ  and  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment must  be  discredited. 

This  teaching  is  far  more  dangerous  than  affirming  the 
Scripture  to  be  in  error  in  matter  of  minor  importance  ; 
it  tends  to  a  total  destruction  of  faith  in  the  Bible.  It 
has  done  that  already  for  many.  It  is  entirely  at  variance 
with  the  confessional  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scripture. 

II.  The  question  concerning  the  book  of  Isaiah  involves 
the  same  principles  as  does  that  concerning  the  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch. 

The  matter  is  formulated  in  the  fifth  charge,  or  the 
sixth  of  the  amended  form,  in  which  Dr.  Briggs  is  charged 
11  with  teaching  that  Isaiah  is  not  the  author  of  half  the 


323 

"  book  that  bears  his  name.''     He  admits  this  to  be  his 
teaching  but  denies  that  it  is  an  offence. 

In  his  Defence,  he  points  out  the  26  Chapters  which 
he  allots  to  Isaiah,  and  the  39  which  he  takes  from  him, 
although  bearing  his  name. 

He  is  led  to  this  result,  not  by  historic  facts,  but,  as 
shown  in  his  Defence  (pp.  132-146),  by  subjective  im- 
pressions whereby  he  finds  himself  able  to  determine  the 
style  in  which  a  man  like  Isaiah  ought  to  have  written, 
what  theological  ideas  it  was  possible  for  him  to  express, 
and  from  what  historical  situation  it  was  possible  for  him 
to  utter  predictive  prophecies.  The  last,  however,  is  the 
decisive  test.  It  is  with  the  critics  a  canon  of  infallible 
authority  that  a  prophet  of  God  can  predict  future  events 
only  from  his  own  historical  point  of  view,  and  to  the 
needs  of  the  people  of  his  age.  Chapter  13  to  14  :  23  is 
taken  from  Isaiah  for  the  reason  that  that  section  cannot 
stand  this  test  of  their  canon  of  criticism.  The  style  and 
theological  ideas  are  correct  enough,  but  it  contains  a 
predictive  prophecy  which  Isaiah  could  not  have  given 
from  his  own  historical  situation,  and  the  passage  can 
therefore  not  be  assigned  to  him.  But  the  Scripture 
credits  Isaiah  with  it.  It  begins  with  the  statement  : 
"  The  burden  of  Babylon,  which  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amos 
"  did  see."  (Isa.  13  :  1.)  The  explanation  by  which  Dr. 
Briggs  seeks  to  nullify  this  distinct  affirmation  of  the 
Bible  is  weak,  far-fetched  and  entirely  unsatisfactory.  In 
the  same  way  the  entire  book  could  be  taken  from  Isaiah. 


324 

But  it  shows  that  any  statement  of  the  Bible,  which  comes 
in  conflict  with  the  theory  of  higher  criticism,  must  be 
discredited ;  and  thus  we  see  here  again,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  Pentateuch,  that  this  criticism  undermines  the 
trustworthiness  of  a  biblical  writing  by  denying  its  claim 
about  itself.  If  Isaiah  did  not  write  Chapter  13^0 
14  :  23,  then  that  section  is  neither  genuine  nor  authentic. 
It  makes  a  false  claim.  It  pretends  to  be  what  it  is  not, 
and  so  is  wholly  unworthy  of  confidence. 

The  assumption  of  the  critics  by  which  this  result  is 
reached  also  destroys  the  evidential  value  of  prophecy. 
For,  if  a  prophet  can  only  speak  from  his  own  historical 
point  of  view  and  to  the  needs  of  his  own  times,  then 
predictive  prophecy  requires  no  more  divine  help  than 
that  long  foresight  by  the  help  of  which  wise  statesmen 
have  often  been  able  to  point  out  needed  lessons  for  the 
future  from  the  drift  of  present  events.  Here  again  we 
see  the  damaging  nature  of  the  theory  of  higher  criticism. 
It  aims  to  explain  supernatural  phenomena  in  biblical 
history  and  prophecy  on  merely  naturalistic  principles. 

But  this  division  of  Isaiah  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the 
statements  of  Christ  and  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. They  assign  quotations  from  all  parts  of  the  book 
to  him,  as  a  person.  With  reference  to  the  disputed  parts 
it  is  said  :  "  For  Esaias  saith,  Lord,  who  hath  believed  our 
"  report?''  But  Esaias  is  very  bold,  "I  was  found  of 
"  them  that  sought  me  not ;  I  was  made  manifest  unto 
"  them  that  asked  not  after  me.  These  things  said 
"  Esaias,  when  he  saw  His  glory  and  spake  of  Him.'? 


325 

It  is  clear  that,  with  all  his  contemporaries,  Christ  be- 
lieves Isaiah  to  be  the  author  of  the  entire  book  which 
bears  his  name,  as  He  held  Moses  to  be  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch  ;  and  it  must  destroy  confidence  in  Him  as 
the  great  Teacher  of  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  if 
He  was  so  ignorant  respecting  the  character  and  origin 
of  the  Old  Testament,  which  He  pretended  to  know 
thoroughly,  which  He  came  to  fulfill,  and  on  which  He 
claimed  to  found  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  This 
teaching  must  bring  discredit  on  Christ  as  the  Teacher. 

These  declarations  of  Dr.  Briggs  in  reference  to  the 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  Isaiah,  but  especially 
of  the  former,  create  distrust  of  the  entire  Bible.  His 
teaching  necessarily  involves  that.  He  says  :  "  Higher 
"  criticism  comes  into  conflict  with  the  authority  of 
"  Scripture  when  it  finds  that  its  statements  are  not  au- 
"  thoritative  and  its  revelations  are  not  credible."  (Bibli- 
cal Study,  p.  243.) 

Dr.  Briggs  here  admits  that  higher  criticism  does 
come  into  conflict  with  the  authority  of  Scripture  to  the 
extent  of  finding  some  of  its  statements  not  authoritative 
and  some  of  its  revelations  not  credible.  And  how  is  it 
possible  to  keep  the  whole  Bible  from  being  involved  in 
distrust  if  higher  criticism  finds  its  statements  not  au- 
thoritative and  its  revelations  not  credible  ? 

This  teaching  of  Dr.  Briggs  is  contrary  also  to  our  Con- 
fessional statements.      "  The  consent  of  all  the  parts," 


326 

can  bear  no  testimony  to  the  entire  perfection  of  such  a 
Bible  as  the  higher  criticism  gives  us.  In  fact,  all  the 
parts  dissent  as  we  have  seen,  and  Dr.  Briggs'  position 
comes  to  this,  that  the  Bible  is  so  full  of  conflicting  and 
mutually  inconsistent  elements,  that  it  requires  to  be  cut 
to  pieces  by  the  higher  criticism  and  reconstructed  on  a 
different  basis  before  the  different  parts  will  consent 
harmoniously. 

This  criticism  also  contravenes  that  statement  of  our 
Confession  which  says  :  "  The  infallible  rule  of  interpreta- 
"  tion  of  Scriptures  is  Scripture  itself,"  for  it  does  not  in- 
terpret Scripture  by  ' '  other  places  of  Scripture  which 
"  speak  more  plainly,"  but  by  the  evolutionary  principles 
of  the  conjectural  theory.  If  we  allow  Scripture  to  inter- 
pret itself  we  find  confirmed  the  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch and  Isaiah  by  Moses  and  Isaiah  respectively. 

But  our  Standards  assert  that  the  entire  written  Bible 
is  to  be  believed,  received  and  obeyed,  for  the  reason  that 
it  is  the  word  of  God,  the  God  of  truth  being  the  author 
thereof,  and  that  the  Christian  shows  his  faith  by  believing 
"  to  be  true,  whatsoever  is  revealed  in  the  word,  for  the 
"  authority  of  God  Himself  speaking  therein." 

It  is  impossible  to  require  such  faith  in  a  Scripture 
which  is  not  only  erroneous  but  also  tainted  with  fraud. 

The  verdict  of  acquittal  by  the  inferior  judicatory  on 
these  two  charges  is  therefore  contrary  to  the  law  and 
evidence  in  this  case  and  should  not  be  allowed  to  stand 
as  the  judgment  of  our  Church. 


327 

The  rejected  charges  may  be  considered  at  this  point. 
We  claim  that  the  inferior  judicatory  erred  in  ordering 
these  two  charges  to  be  stricken  out.  It  was  an  error 
for  the  reason  that  they  allege  valid  offences,  as  we  will 
now  show. 

i.     Predictive  Prophecy. 

In  the  fourth  of  the  amended  charges,  Dr.  Briggs  is 
charged  "  with  teaching  that  many  of  the  Old  Testament 
"  predictions  have  been  reversed  by  history,  and  that  the 
"  great  body  of  Messianic  prediction  cannot  be  fulfilled." 

He  complains  that  he  is  misquoted,  and  that  invalid 
inferences  are  drawn  from  his  statement,  but  the  complaint 
is  not  well  founded.  The  entire  statement  is  given  in  the 
specification,  and  it  sustains  the  charge.  The  qualifying 
clause  concerning  "  the  details  of  predictive  prophecy  of 
"  the  Old  Testament "  in  no  wise  modifies  the  statement 
that  "  many  of  these  predictions  have  been  reversed  by 
11  history." 

The  statement  was  originally  made  by  Kuenen,  and 
when  Dr.  Briggs  adopted  it  as  his  own,  he  failed  to  state 
that  he  did  not  use  it  with  Kuenen's  meaning.  Kuenen 
sustained  his  position  by  denial  of  the  reality  of  predictive 
prophecy,  the  inspiration  of  the  prophet  and  the  presence 
of  the  supernatural  in  the  Bible.  He  says  :  "  It  is  the 
"  common  conviction  of  all  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
"  ment  that  the  Old  Testament  is  inspired  of  God,  and  is 
"  thus  invested  with  divine  authority.    The  remark,  made 


328 

"  as  it  were  in  passing,  in  a  passage  from  the  fourth  Gos- 
"  pel,  that  the  Scripture  cannot  be  broken,  is  assented 
"  to  by  all  the  writers,  without  distinction.  In  accordance 
"  with  this  they  ascribe  divine  fore-knowledge  to  the 
"  Israelitish  prophets.  And  far  indeed  from  limiting  this 
11  fore-knowledge  to  generalities,  and  thus  depriving  it  of 
"  all  its  importance,  they  refer  us  repeatedly  to  the 
"  agreement  between  specific  prophetical  utterances  and 
"  single  historical  facts,  and  have  no  hesitation  in  declar- 
"  ing  their  conviction,  both  that  the  prophet  spoke  of 
"  these  specific  facts,  and  that  they,  under  God's  direction, 
1 '  occurred  in  order  that  the  word  of  the  prophet  might  be 
"  fulfilled.  *  *  *  The  New  Testament  judgment 
"  concerning  the  origin  and  nature  of  the  prophetical  ex- 
"  pectations,  and  concerning  their  relation  to  historical 
"  reality,  may  be  regarded  as  diametrically  opposed  to 
"  ours.v  (Kuenen,  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel, 
pp.  448,  449.) 

Kuenen  here  acknowledges  that  all  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  without  distinction  believed  in  the  fulfillment 
of  the  details  of  predictive  prophecy  and  that  he  aimed  to 
disprove  the  details,  the  specific  prophetical  utterances  and 
single  historical  facts,  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the 
value  of  the  prophecy  itself. 

It  must  be  conceded  that  whenever  predictive  prophecy 
may  become  an  actual  occurrence,  there  must  be  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  details  to  make  that  event  possible  ;  and 
hence,  to  deny  details  is  to  deny  the  actual  occurrence  of 
the  event  predicted. 


329 

But  even  if  admitting  that  the  qualifying  clause  covers 
the  last  sentence,  the  case  is  not  changed.  Dr.  Briggs 
categorically  asserts  all  that  is  charged  against  him,  for 
he  says,  that  "  the  great  body  of  the  Messianic  prediction 
**  has  not  only  never  been  fulfilled,  but  cannot  now  be 
"  fulfilled";  and  also  that  "  the  prediction  of  Jonah  is  not 
"  the  only  unfulfilled  prediction  in  the  Old  Testament." 
These  utterances  of  Dr.  Briggs  have  caused  alarm  and 
justly.  The  leaders  of  the  higher  criticism  school  are,  for 
the  most  part,  avowedly  hostile  to  that  supernatural  ele- 
ment in  Scripture  which  predictive  prophecy  calls  for  ; 
consistently,  therefore,  they  deny  the  existence  of  such 
prophecy,  and  hold  that  the  prophets  of  Scripture  were 
nothing  more  than  men  of  extraordinary  genius  and  illu- 
mination, whose  utterances  concerning  the  future  were 
based  on  a  far-seeing  foresight  of  the  providential  drift  of 
things  in  their  historical  situation. 

The  Scripture  contains  a  large  number  of  predictions. 
Some  of  them  have  been  fulfilled,  while  others  remain 
thus  far  unfulfilled.  It  is  possible  that  both  the  matter 
and  form  of  some  predictive  prophecies  have  been  mis- 
understood, and  thus  misinterpreted,  but  it  is  impossible 
to  misunderstand  the  Scripture  position,  that  all  which 
the  Lord  has  spoken  by  the  mouth  of  His  holy  prophets 
is  to  be  fulfilled.  Joshua  states  the  biblical  point  of  view 
in  these  words  :  "  Ye  know  in  your  hearts  and  in  all 
"  your  souls,  that  not  one  thing  hath  failed  of  all  the  good 
"  things  which  the   Lord   your   God   spake   concerning 


330 

M  you  ;  all  are  come  to  pass  unto  you,  and  not  one  thing 
"  hath  failed  thereof.''  How  different  this  from  Dr. 
Briggs'  position. 

The  New  Testament  writers  repeatedly  assert  that  the 
Scriptures  contain  predictive  prophecy,  take  for  granted 
that  every  part  of  it  will  be  fulfilled,  and  give  detailed 
instances  where  either  it  has  come  to  pass  or  will  yet 
surely  take  place.  They  thus  refer  to  the  ministry  of 
John  ;  the  fact  that  Christ  was  born  of  a  virgin,  and  at 
Bethlehem,  and  resided  at  Nazareth  ;  that  He  rode  on 
an  ass  into  Jerusalem  ;  was  forsaken  by  His  disciples  ;  was 
sold  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  and  that  lots  were  cast  for 
His  vesture.  (Isa.  40  :  3,  and  Mt.  3:3;  Isa.  7:14,  and  Mt. 
1  :  23,  24  ;  Micah  5  :  2,  and  Mt.  2  :  5,  6  ;  Mt.  2:23;  Zech. 
9  :9,and  Mt.  21  :  4,  5  ;  Zech.  11  :  12,  13,  and  Mt  27  :  9  ; 
Zech.  13:7,  and  Mt.  26:  31  ;  Ps.  22  :  18,  and  Mt.  27  :  33.) 
Similarly,  allusion  is  made  to  the  abomination  of  desola- 
tion spoken  by  Daniel  the  prophet  as  certain  to  be  ful- 
filled. (Dan.  9  :  27,  and  Mt.  24  :  i5.)  Here  the  fulfill- 
ment of  Old  Testament  predictions  are  cited  to  the 
minutest  detail. 

The  language  of  Christ  is  still  more  emphatic.  He 
came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  and  most  solemnly  affirmed  that  rather  would 
heaven  and  earth  pass  away  than  that  one  jot  or  one 
tittle  of  them  should  remain  unfulfilled.  (Matt.  5  :  17,  18.) 
He  claimed  the  fulfillment  in  Himself  of  what  the  Spirit 
foretold  by  the  mouth  of  David  in  Psalm  ex.,  and  told  His 


331 

disciples,  after  the  resurrection:  "That  all  things  must 
"  be  fulfilled,  which  were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses, 
"  and  in  the  prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms,  concerning  me." 
(Luke  24  :  44.)  Our  Lord  here  affirms  that  there  is  a 
divine  necessity  that,  not  merely  prophecy  in  general,  but 
all  things  concerning  Him  must  be  fulfilled  ;  "All  things '' 
must  surely  include  Messianic  predictions.  Much  more 
might  be  cited  to  the  same  effect,  but  this  is  sufficient. 

If,  in  view  of  all  this,  the  statements  of  Dr.  Briggs  are 
to  be  considered  as  correct,  that  "many  predictions  of 
"  the  Old  Testament  have  been  reversed  by  history ''; 
and  that  "  the  great  body  of  the  Messianic  prediction  has 
*J  not  only  never  been  fulfilled,  but  cannot  now  be  ful- 
"  filled,"  then  the  plain  utterances  of  Scripture  coming 
ostensibly  from  the  Lord  by  the  mouth  of  His  servants 
the  prophets,  together  with  the  declarations  of  Christ  con- 
cerning prophecy  in  general,  and  Messianic  prophecy  in 
particular,  are  contradicted.  It  is  the  Bible  and  Christ 
against  Dr.  Briggs.  The  attributes  of  God,  pointed  out 
in  the  charge,  are  here  involved. 

These  statements  of  Dr.  Briggs  being  in  conflict  with 
the  declarations  of  Scripture  and  the  citations  from  the 
Standards  should  be  condemned  by  this  Court  and  be 
disavowed  by  him. 

2.  Redemption  after  Death. 

The  other  rejected  charge  is  the  7th  of  the  amended 
form,  in  which  Dr.  Briggs  is  charged  "  with  teaching  that 


332 

"  the  processes  of  redemption  extend  to  the  world  to 
"  come  in  the  case  of  many  who  die  in  sin." 

It  is  claimed  that  he  disavowed  this  doctrine  by  cate- 
gorically answering  a  question  propounded  to  him  in 
private  by  directors  of  Union  Seminary.  But  such  a  cate- 
gorical answer  under  such  circumstances  proves  nothing 
and  disavows  nothing  ;  the  more  so,  because  since  that 
time  Dr.  Briggs  has  affirmed  his  adherence  to  everything 
which  he  has  stated  in  the  Inaugural  both  as  to  "  matter 
"  and  form." 

We  therefore  ask  this  Venerable  Body  to  consider 
whether  the  facts  pointed  out  in  the  specification  do  not, 
in  the  light  of  the  evidence  submitted,  prove  the  charge. 

He  accuses  Protestants  of  the  fault  of  not  extending  the 
process  of  redemption  to  the  vast  periods  of  time  in  the 
middle  state  between  death  and  the  resurrection.  (In- 
augural, p.  53.) 

"  The  processes  of  redemption,"  he  states,  "  ever  keep 
11  the  race  in  mind.  The  Bible  tells  us  of  a  race  origin,  a 
11  race  ideal,  a  race  Redeemer  and  a  race  redemption." 
(Inaugural,  p.  5o.) 

According  to  Dr.  Briggs,  redemption  is  not  limited  by 
election.  He  says,  "The  Bible  does  not  teach  universal 
"  salvation,  but  it  does  teach  the  salvation  of  the  world,  of 
"  the  race  of  man,  and  that  cannot  be  accomplished  by 
"  the  selection  of  a  limited  number  of  individuals  from  the 


333 

"  mass.  *  *  *  The  salvation  of  the  world  can  only  mean 
"  the  world  as  a  whole,  compared  with  which  the  unre- 
"  deemed  will  be  so  few  and  insignificant  and  evidently 
u  beyond  the  reach  of  redemption  by  their  own  act  of 
"  rejecting  it  and  hardening  themselves  against  it,  and  by 
"  descending  into  such  depths  of  demoniacal  depravity  in 
' '  the  middle  state,  that  they  will  vanish  from  the  sight  of 
11  the  redeemed  as  altogether  and  irredeemably  evil 
"  and  never  more  disturb  the  harmonies  of  the  saints." 
(Inaugural,  pp.  55,  56.) 

If  Dr.  Briggs  does  not  teach  in  this  passage  that  some 
men  who  die  impenitent  might  have  been  redeemed  in  the 
middle  state  but  for  their  "  descending  into  such  depths  of 
"demoniacal  depravity  in  the  middle  state,"  then  certainly 
when  he  tried  to  clothe  his  concept  with  language,  he 
puts  its  clothes  on  upside  down.  The  unmistakable  drift 
of  the  entire  passage  is  that  the  redemption  of  the  world, 
of  the  race  of  man,  is  largely  to  be  accomplished  by  means 
of  the  opportunities  which  will  be  given  them  in  the 
middle  state. 

And  this  agrees  with  what  Dr.  Briggs  has  stated  con- 
cerning "a  judgment  immediately  after  death."  (In- 
augural, p.  54.)  He  calls  it  a  "  hurtful  unchristian  error,"  a 
"bugbear,"  which  "makes  death  a  terror  to  the  best  of 
men."  This  points  unmistakably  to  another  chance  after 
death,  since  the  issues  of  life  are  not  to  be  regarded  as 
final  at  death.    It  is  a  hurtful  error  which  he  renounces. 

In  line  with  this,  Dr.  Briggs  terms  the  statements  of 


334 

Dr.  Dorner  concerning  the  possibility  of  repentance  in  the 
next  world,  "excellent  thoughts."  (Whither,  p.  211.) 
His  remarks  about  the  unpardonable  sin  cited  in  the 
specification,  point  in  the  same  direction.  He  says  of 
some  classes  of  people  that  not  until  they  reach  the 
middle  state  "  are  they  justified,  for  there  can  be  no  justifi- 
"  cation  without  faith  for  them  any  more  than  for  others. 
11  The  intermediate  state  is  for  them  a  state  of  blessed pos- 
u  sibilities  of  redemption."  (Magazine  of  Christian  Litera- 
ture, Dec,  1889,  p.  no.)  "We  are  opening  our 
"  minds,"  he  says,  "  to  see  that  the  Redeemer's  work  upon 
11  the  cross  was  the  beginning  of  a  larger  work  in  the 
"  realm  of  the  dead,  and  from  His  heavenly  throne 
"  whence  the  exalted  Saviour  is  drawing  all  men  to 
11  Himself."  (Andover  Review,  vol.  13,  p.  59.)  And 
again,  "  If  life  in  this  world  is  brief,  and  life  in  the  middle 
"  state  is  long,  we  must  rise  to  the  conception  of  the  love 
"  of  God  as  accomplishing  even  greater  works  of  redemp- 
"  tion  in  the  middle  state  than  in  this  world."  (Magazine 
of  Christian  Literature,  Dec,  1889,  p.  106.) 

These  are  dangerous  utterances,  all  the  more  so  be- 
cause they  come  from  a  professor  of  a  prominent  Theo- 
logical Seminary.  They  are  calculated  to  make  men 
careless  about  their  eternal  welfare  and  lead  them  to 
presume  on  the  mercy  of  God.  The  Scriptures  and  the 
Standards  of  our  Church,  as  shown  by  the  citations 
annexed  to  this  charge,  confine  the  work  of  redemption 
to  this  life  under  the  dispensation  of  the  Gospel.     Both 


335 

Scripture  and  Standards  agree  in  declaring  that  "  now  is 
"  the  accepted  time,  behold  now  is  the  day  of  salvation  '' ; 
that  "it  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  but  after  this 
"judgment"  and  that  there  is  an  impassable  "  gulf  fixed  " 
immediately  after  death  between  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked.     (2  Cor.  6:2;  Heb.  9  :  27  ;  Luke  16  :  26.) 

This  teaching  of  Dr.  Briggs  should  be  condemned  by 
this  Court,  and  be  retracted  by  him. 

Progressive  Sanctification  after  Death. 
The  last  or  8th  charge  of  the  amended  form  refers  to 
the  subject  of  Progressive  Sanctification  after  death,  in 
which  Dr.  Briggs  is  charged  "  with  teaching  that  Sancti- 
"  fication  is  not  complete  at  death." 

He  admits  the  charge,  but  denies  that  it  constitutes 
an  offence,  alleging  not  only  that  the  doctrine  is  not 
contrary  to  the  Scripture  and  Standards,  but  also  that  it 
is  the  very  doctrine  taught  in  them. 

Sanctification  has  for  its  aim,  the  removal  of  sin  from 
the  nature  of  believers  with  all  its  effects.  "  Sanctifica- 
"  tion  is  a  work  of  God's  free  grace,  whereby  we  are 
"  renewed  in  the  whole  man  after  the  image  of  God,  and 
"  are  enabled  more  and  more  to  die  unto  sin  and  live 
"  unto  righteousness."  And  when  we  are  completely 
dead  to  sin,  when  it  has  been  entirely  exterminated  from 
the  soul,  then  sanctification  has  completed  its  work,  and 
the  believer,  having  been  renewed  in  the   whole  man 


336 

after  the  image  of  God,  will  live  unto  righteousness,  and 
be  perfectly  holy.  He  will  be  no  longer  in  need  of  either 
sanctification  or  redemption. 

Adam,  before  he  sinned,  as  created  in  the  image  of 
God,  was  perfectly  holy,  and  did  not  need  to  have  any 
part  of  the  process  of  redemption  applied  to  him.  It  was 
possible  for  him  to  advance  in  the  breadth  and  intensity 
of  holy  life  to  all  eternity,  but  such  an  onward  growth  in 
holy  life  cannot  be  called  a  process  of  sanctification. 

Christ  was  perfectly  holy  when  He  was  born.  After 
that  He  grew,  as  the  God-man,  into  a  larger  and  fuller 
life,  but  He  was  at  no  time  more  holy  or  morally  perfect 
than  on  the  day  of  His  birth.  In  the  same  way  the 
believer  will,  when  at  death  he  has  been  made  perfect  in 
holiness,  advance  along  all  the  lines  of  holy  life  forever. 
That  is  not  the  question  at  issue. 

That  Dr.  Briggs  uses  the  term  sanctification  in  the 
sense  of  eliminating  sin  from  the  soul  of  believers  is  plain 
from  the  language  of  the  Inaugural.  In  order  to  main- 
tain his  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  after 
death,  he  finds  it  necessary  to  attack  the  Protestant 
doctrine,  which  limits  the  process  of  redemption  to  this 
world,  and  refuses  to  extend  it  to  the  vast  periods  of  the 
world  beyond  the  grave.  (Inaugural,  pp.  53,  54.)  The 
Protestant  doctrine,  according  to  which  the  believer  is 
made  perfectly  holy  at  death,  stands  in  the  way  of  Dr. 
Briggs'  doctrine. 


337 

He  affirms  that  progressive  sanctification  after  death  is 
necessary,  ' '  in  order  that  the  work  of  redemption  may  be 
"  complete."     (Inaugural,  p.  54.) 

He  terms  the  transformation  of  the  saint,  in  the  dying 
hour,  a  magical  illusion,  which  should  be  banished  from 
the  world  and  renounced  as  a  hurtful  unchristian  error. 
(Inaugural,  p.  54.)  He  maintains  that  believers,  after  death, 
"  are  still  the  same  persons,  with  all  the  gifts  and  graces, 
11  and  also  the  same  habits  of  mind,  disposition  and  temper, 
"  which  they  had  when  they  left  the  world.  Death  de- 
"  stroys  the  body.  It  does  not  change  the  moral  and 
"  religious  nature  of  man."  ("  Evil  Habits,"  in  Magazine 
of  Christian  Literature.)  Sin,  therefore,  remains  still  in 
the  higher  nature  of  man,  and  it  is  the  office  of  progressive 
sanctification  after  death  to  overcome  sin  in  that  nature. 
(Inaugural,  2d  ed.,  p.  108.) 

"  The  intermediate  state,"  he  says,  "  is  for  all  believers, 
ri  without  exception,  a  state  for  their  sanctification.  They 
"  are  there  trained  in  the  School  of  Christ,  and  are  pre- 
"  pared  for  the  Christian  perfection  which  they  must 
"attain  ere  the  judgment  day."  (Magazine  of  Christian 
Literature,  Dec,  1889,  p.  112.)  He  assures  us  that 
believers  are,  in  the  middle  state,  "delivered  from  all 
"  temptations  such  as  spring  from  without,  from  the  world 
"  and  the  devil.  They  are  encircled  with  influences  for 
"  good  such  as  they  never  enjoyed  before."  (Inaugural,  p. 
107.)  Therefore,  "  we  may  justly  hold,"  he  states,  "that 
"  the  evil  which  still  lingers  in  the  higher  moral  nature  of 


338 

M  believers  will  be  suppressed  and  modified  with  an  energy 
"  of  repentance,  humiliation,  confession  and  determination 
"  that  will  be  more  powerful  than  ever  before,  because  it 
"  will  be  stimulated  by  the  presence  of  Christ  and  His 
11  saints."  (Magazine  of  Christian  Lit.,  Dec,  1889,  p.  114.) 

These  statements  show  that,  in  the  view  of  Dr.  Briggs, 
believers  do  not  enter  the  next  world  free  from  sin.  If 
they  were  without  sin,  then  certainly  there  could  be  no 
place  for  confession,  repentance  and  humiliation  for  sin, 
and  endeavors  to  suppress  it. 

His  reference  to  Abraham,  in  illustration  of  the  doc- 
trine, confirms  this  view.  In  his  earthly  life,  Dr.  Briggs 
tells  us,  the  old  patriarch  lived  on  a  plane  of  moral  ad- 
vancement so  low,  that,  were  he  living  now,  we  could 
not  receive  him  into  our  families  ;  nay,  we  might  be 
obliged  even  to  imprison  him  lest  he  should  defile  the 
community  by  his  example.  But  when  he  "  went  into 
"  the  abode  of  the  dead,  he  held  his  pre-eminence  among 
"  the  departed.  He  made  up  for  his  defects  in  this  life  by 
<(  advancing  in  the  school  of  sanctification  there  open  to 
"  him."  (Inaugural,  pp.  56,  57.)  Abraham  was  freed 
from  sin  and  moral  imperfection  in  the  intermediate  state. 

This  is  still  further  confirmed  by  the  naturalistic  prin- 
ciple of  evolution  which,  in  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Briggs, 
necessitates  the  extension  of  the  process  of  sanctification 
into  the  next  world.  He  states  :  "  It  is  unpsychological 
11  and  unethical  to  suppose  that  the  character  of  a  disem- 
"  bodied  spirit  will  all  be  changed  in  the  moment  of 
"  death."     (Inaugural,  pp.  107,  108.) 


339 

In  his  Defence,  he  maintains  the  same  position.  He 
states  that  the  best  of  Christians  leave  this  world  weak 
and  imperfect  (Defence,  p.  177) ;  that  they  are  still  impure, 
in  need  of  Christ  as  their  Priest,  and  of  cleansing  by  His 
blood  (Defence,  pp.  166-8);  and  that  they  are  morally 
imperfect  in  nature  and  conduct.  (Defence,  pp.  166,  169, 
170,  172,  173,  175.)  Those  who  are  impure  and  morally 
defective  in  character  and  life  are  sinful ;  for  sin  does  not 
consist  merely  of  positive  transgressions,  but  any  want  of 
conformity  to  the  law  of  God  is  sin.  He  does  in  fact 
affirm  that  not  until  the  judgment  day  shall  believers  be 
fully  and  forever  freed  from  all  sin  (Defence,  p.  i56)  ; 
and  therefore  when  he  says,  "  I  see  believers  enter 
"  the  middle  state  still  imperfect,  but  they  are  cleansed 
"  by  the  blood  of  Christ  from  all  sin,  and  are  therefore 
"  sinless"  (Defence,  p.  177),  he  must  in  consistency  be 
understood  to  mean  that  sin  is  not  imputed  to  them,  as 
it  is  not  to  believers  in  this  world.  This  accords  perfectly 
with  his  statement  on  pp.  1 58,  i5q  of  Defence,  where  he 
says  :  "I  do  not  doubt  that  the  fountain  which  flows 
11  from  the  Redeemer's  side  cleanseth  from  all  sin  in  the 
''  hour  of  death  as  in  any  hour  of  life,  when  the  sinner 
"  opens  his  heart  in  faith  and  repentance  to  the  saving 
"  love  of  Jesus."  All  believers  are  thus  imputatively 
sinless. 

The  whole  contention  of  Dr.  Briggs,  in  his  Defence,  is 
that  the  Bible  and  the  Standards  favor  the  view  that  the 
work  of  making  believers  pure,  morally  perfect  and  holy, 
is  accomplished  by  means  of  progressive  sanctification 


340 

after  death.  In  discussing  one  of  the  rejected  charges,  it 
was  shown  that,  according  to  his  teaching,  the  exercise  of 
faith  and  the  act  of  justification  may  possibly  take  place 
after  death ;  so  that,  as  sin  cannot  be  removed  before 
justification  nor  before  the  exercise  of  faith  and  repent- 
ance, it  is  clear  that  believers  can  enter  the  next  world 
sinful  and  morally  imperfect. 

This  doctrine  is  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  The  two  passages  of  Scripture  appended  to 
this  charge,  show  in  the  one  case  that  the  spirits  of  just 
men  in  the  state  between  death  and  the  resurrection  are 
perfect ;  and  in  the  other,  that  the  transformation  of  the 
saints,  who  shall  be  on  the  earth  when  Christ  shall  come 
again,  from  their  imperfect  and  sinful  condition  in  this  life 
to  perfect  holiness  shall  take  place  instantly,  "  in  the 
"  twinkling  of  an  eye."  It  is  easily  possible  for  the  Spirit 
of  God  to  work  the  same  change  in  the  souls  of  all 
believers  instantly  at  their  death,  in  spite  of  any  natural 
principle  of  psychology  or  ethics. 

But  the  Bible  teaches  in  many  other  places  that 
believers  enter  immediately  after  death  into  a  state  of 
perfect  holiness.  It  represents  them  there  as  the  "  in- 
"  heritors  of  the  promises,"  as  arrayed  in  white  robes 
with  palms  in  their  hands,  as  having  entered  into  the  per- 
fect rest  of  God  and  exchanged  the  mortal  for  the  im- 
mortal. It  speaks  of  them  as  housed  in  heaven,  where 
only  the  undefiled  can  go,  and  as  having  gone  to  be  for- 
ever with  Christ,  whom  only  the  holy  shall  see.      The 


341 

Bible  gives  no  intimation  of  any  process  of  redemption  or 
sanctification  in  the  next  world. 

The  Standards  of  our  Church,  too,  are  as  silent  as 
the  Bible  respecting  any  Gospel  work,  processes  of  re- 
demption or  ministrations  of  the  Spirit  in  the  life  after 
death.  They  confine  redemption  in  all  its  processes  to 
this  life. 

The  Confession  states  that  "  the  souls  of  the  righteous  " 
immediately  after  death,  "  being  then  made  perfect  in 
"  holiness,  are  received  into  the  highest  heaven'';  the 
Larger  Catechism  tells  us,  "The  Communion  in  glory 
"  with  Christ  which  the  members  of  the  invisible  church 
"  enjoy  immediately  after  death,  is  in  that  their  souls  are 
11  then  made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  received  into  the 
"  highest  heavens,  where  they  behold  the  face  of  God  in 
"  light  and  glory,"  and  the  Shorter  Catechism  asserts, 
"  The  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  perfect 
"  in  holiness  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory''; 
by  no  violence  can  such  language  be  made  consistent 
with  the  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  after  death  ; 
it  is  impossible  to  conceive  that  the  authors  of  our  Stand- 
ards could  have  intended  to  teach  any  such  doctrine,  for 
they  held  the  opposing  doctrine,  which  they  have  expressed 
so  well  in  the  statements  quoted.  They  say  in  L.  C,  85, 
that  the  righteous  "  even  in  death  are  delivered  from  the 
"  sting  and  curse  of  it ;  so  that  although  they  die,  yet  it 
"  is  out  of  God's  love,  to  free  them  perfectly  from  sin  and 
"  misery." 


342 

This  doctrine  of  Dr.  Briggs  then  is  an  offence  accord- 
ing to  the  Book  of  Discipline  for  the  following  three 
reasons  : 

i.  The  doctrine  is  contrary  to  the  Bible  and  the  Stand- 
ards. It  is  injected  into  them  at  the  behest  of  a  natural- 
istic principle  of  psychology  and  ethics  according  to  which 
the  instant  change  of  a  saint  of  God  at  death  to  perfect 
holiness  by  the  divine  Spirit  is  declared  to  be  a  magical 
illusion. 

2.  It  is  separated  from  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of 
purgatory  by  so  frail  a  barrier  that  it  will  easily  pass  into  it. 

3.  It  will  lead  to  graver  departures  from  the  faith.  The 
doctrine  of  redemption  after  death  is  advocated  at  present 
principally  in  the  interest  of  the  doctrine  of  Second  Pro- 
bation, Dr.  Briggs  entertains  the  largest  hopes  in  re- 
spect to  the  possibilities  of  redemption  in  the  middle 
state. 

He  says,  in  Whither,  p.  221  :  "The  question  which 
M  we  have  to  determine  as  Calvinists  is — whether  the 
"  divine  act  of  regeneration  may  take  place  in  the  middle 
"  state  or  not." 

Certainly,  if  we  once  admit  that  one  of  the  processes  of 
redemption  takes  place  in  the  middle  state,  we  will  be 
compelled,  ere  long,  in  logical  consistency,  to  affirm  that 
all  the  processes  of  redemption  may  be  carried  on  there. 

The  verdict  of  acquittal,  therefore,  on  this  charge,  is 


343 

contrary  to  the  evidence  and  to  Presbyterian  doctrine, 

and  should  be  reversed. 

• 

We  have  shown  that  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  has 
rendered  a  decision  contrary  to  the  law  and  evidence  in 
giving  its  verdict  of  acquittal  in  this  case.  As  not  in 
accord  with  true  Presbyterian  doctrine,  the  verdict  should 
be  reversed  and  another  should  be  formulated  in  harmony 
with  our  doctrines  and  the  evidence  in  this  case. 

The  Presbytery,  while  not  approving  the  erroneous 
views  of  Dr.  Briggs,  suggests  that  they  should  be  toler- 
ated in  the  interest  of  scholarship  and  liberty. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  favors  the  best  scholarship 
and  insists  that  its  ministers  shall  be  thoroughly  educated. 
It  welcomes  the  deepest  research,  but  it  requires  also  a 
reverent  handling  of  the  Word  of  God.  The  type  of 
higher  criticism  which  is  before  us  has  no  monopoly  of 
scholarship.  Scholars  who  in  knowledge  and  skill  are  at 
least  easily  the  peers  of  those  who  claim  to  be  the  higher 
critics  dispute  their  claims.  Since  the  methods  of  higher 
criticism  are  uncertain  and  its  results  so  far  not  large,  it 
becomes  its  apostles  to  be  modest.  They  have,  however, 
laid  themselves  open  to  suspicion  by  inordinate  conceit 
and  utter  recklessness. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  is  the  friend  of  liberty.  It 
has  always  been  foremost  in  efforts  to  promote  religious, 
civil,  social  and  individual  freedom.  It  demands  the 
freest  and  fullest  honest  investigation  of  all  the  facts  and 
phenomena  of  the  Bible. 


344 

But  as  in  all  other  relations  and  institutions,  divine  and 
human,  liberty  in  our  Church  or  in  any  other  Church 
must  be  regulated  liberty.  It  has  its  limitations.  The 
freedom  of  one's  house  does  not  mean  the  right  to  pull 
out  its  foundation.  And  liberty  in  a  denomination  can- 
not mean  the  right  to  destroy  its  denominational  life  and 
doctrines. 

No  one  restrains  the  liberty  of  Dr.  Briggs.  He  is  as 
free  to  go  as  he  was  to  come.  On  his  own  responsibility 
he  can  proclaim  his  theological  and  critical  views  from  the 
house-tops.  The  whole  world  will  give  him  a  hearing. 
But  he  may  not  exercise  this  liberty  in  the  denomination, 
at  the  expense  of  that  of  his  brethren.  They  have  an 
equal  right  with  him  to  the  enjoyment  of  liberty. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  is  also  entitled  to  her  share 
of  the  blessings  of  liberty.  If  she  feels  in  conscience 
bound  to  maintain  her  unbroken  testimony  for  doctrines 
which  were  taught  by  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  and  which 
have  been  held  by  the  Church  of  Christ  from  New  Testa- 
ment times  to  the  present,  then  in  God's  name,  the 
liberty  to  do  this  should  be  freely  accorded  to  her.  No 
man  may  wrench  from  her  hand  her  imprimatur  and 
affix  it  to  doctrines  which  are  abhorrent  to  her  member- 
ship and  destructive  of  her  denominational  tenets,  genius 
and  life. 

At  three  different  times  the  General  Assembly  has 
warned  the  churches  against  the  baneful  influence  of  that 
kind  of  biblical  criticism,  which  Dr.  Briggs  champions,  as 


345 

tending  to  undermine  faith  in  the  Holy  Scripture  ;  and 
enjoined  the  Presbyteries  to  see  to  it  that  our  students 
for  the  ministry  were  not  subjected  to  this  criticism  dur- 
ing their  theological  training.  The  Church  has  been  very 
patient  in  this  matter,  and  Dr.  Briggs,  not  having  heeded 
the  warning  of  the  Assembly,  has  now  no  right  to  com- 
plain that  his  liberty  is  unduly  interfered  with,  if  they  re- 
fuse longer  to  be  responsible  for  the  destructive  opinions 
which  he  propagates. 

Greater  things  than  mere  liberty  and  scholarship  are 
involved  in  this  issue.  Truth,  honor  and  fidelity  to 
great  trusts  committed  claim  our  attention.  We  are 
in  a  crisis.  Not  only  are  great  doctrines  of  our  faith 
emasculated;  the  Bible  itself  is  in  peril.  It  is  assailed 
from  unusual  quarters.  It  is  wounded  in  the  house  of 
its  friends.  Our  people  are  profoundly  stirred.  They 
are  greatly  troubled,  and  look  to  this  Assembly  for 
relief. 

A  great  responsibility  rests  on  you  to-day,  Mr.  Moder- 
ator and  Brethren.  It  is  for  you  to  decide  whether  our  great 
Church  shall  continue  her  faith  in  the  sole  supremacy  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  source  of  authority  in  religion 
for  salvation  and  certainty  ;  or  admit  the  Church  and  the 
Reason  to  an  equality  with  the  Scriptures  in  this  matter  ; 
whether  we  will  continue  our  testimony  for  the  absolute 
truthfulness  and  trustworthiness  of  the  Word  of  God,  or 
tolerate  the  propagation  of  the  doctrine  of  an  errant 
Scripture;    whether  we  will  still  affirm  the  plenary  in- 


346 

spiration  of  the  Holy  Scripture  to  the  extent  of  entire 
truthfulness,  or  so  lower  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  as 
will  permit  us  to  say  that  an  inspired  writer  in  penning 
the  Bible  not  only  committed  errors  but  stated  what  he 
knew  to  be  false,  and  whether  we  shall  still  teach  that  the 
work  of  redemption  is  confined  to  this  life,  or  that  it  is 
to  be  extended  to  the  vast  periods  of  time  which  intervene 
between  death  and  the  resurrection. 

These  questions  have  hitherto  not  been  relegated  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church  to  the  domain  of  liberty  of 
opinion.  They  have  been  regarded  as  of  such  vital 
importance  that  those  who  have  assumed  the  vow  to 
which  Presbyterian  Ministers  subscribe  might  not  differ 
In  respect  to  them. 

The  Presbytery  of  New  York  concedes  that  "  grave 
"  issues "  are  involved.  Truly,  truly.  Tolerate  the 
errors,  say  the  Presbytery,  but  be  careful  not  to  approve 
them.  Strange  delusion.  Now,  our  people  not  only, 
but  Christian  people  generally,  are  anxiously  waiting  to 
hear  what  answer  this  great  Assembly  will  give  to  these 
questions.  And  the  opportunity  is  offered  to  this  Vener- 
able Body  to  allay  anxiety,  to  restore  confidence  and  to 
re-establish  peace,  by  wise  counsels,  by  bearing  clear 
testimony  for  the  truth  of  God,  by  speaking  with  no 
uncertain  sound,  by  contending  "  earnestly  for  the  faith 
"  which  was  once  for  all  delivered  unto  the  saints,"  and 
by  firmly  holding  "  fast  the  form  of  sound  words." 


347 


IX. 

Mr.  McCook's  Closing  Argument  in  Keply  to  Dr. 
Briggs,  on  the  Merits  of  the  Appeal. 


Moderator,  Fathers  and  Brethren  : 

In  the  printed  document  before  you,  prepared  by 
the  Prosecuting  Committee,  for  the  information  of  the 
Court,  at  page  44  (page  50  of  this  volume),  you  will 
find  the  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications  upon 
which  the  Appellee  was  tried  in  the  lower  Judicatory. 

The  Amended  Charges  and  Specifications. 

Section  15  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  provides: 
* '  The  charge  shall  set  forth  the  alleged  offence  ;  and 
"  the  specifications  shall  set  forth  the  facts  relied  upon 
"  to  sustain  the  charge."  You  will  notice  that  in 
drafting  each  charge,  the  Committee  has  carefully 
followed  the  provisions  of  the  book. 

Section  15,  further  provides  that  "  Each  specification 
"  shall  declare,  as  far  as  possible,  the  time,  place,  and 
"  circumstances."  Each  one  of  the  specifications  be- 
gins with  a  recital  of  the  time,  place  and  circumstances 
under  which  the  Inaugural  Address  was  delivered. 
Following,  and  as  a  part  of  each  of  the  specifications, 
you  will  find  extracts  from  the  Inaugural  Address  de- 
livered by  the  Appellee,  at  the  time  and  place  charged. 
Following  these  extracts  are  the  quotations  from  the 
Scriptures,  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms, 
to  which  the  words  of  the  Inaugural  Address  set  out 
in  the  Specifications  are  directly  opposed. 

Under  the  provisions  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  a 
charge  can  be  sustained,  only,  by  first  sustaining  the 


348 

specifications  presented  to  support  the  charge.  Section 
23  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  provides  that  u  the  judi- 
11  catory  shall  proceed  to  vote  on  each  specification  and 
M  on  each  charge  separately." 

The  Prosecuting  Committee,  in  preparing  the  amended 
Charges  and  Specifications,  endeavored  to  follow,  in  so 
far  as  they  properly  might,  every  suggestion  made  by 
Dr.  Briggs  in  his  Response  to  the  original  Charges  and 
Specifications.  And  yet  the  Committee  has  been  ac- 
cused by  the  Appellee  of  inconsistency,  because  they 
complied  with  some  of  the  Appellee' s  suggestions  in 
this  behalf.  For  the  sake  of  clearness  and  to  define 
the  issue  to  the  narrowest  limit,  we  tried  to  make  the 
amended  Charges  and  Specifications  so  plain,  that  there 
could  be  no  question  as  to  what  was  charged  and  what 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  intended  to  prove. 

To  avoid  issues  of  fact,  the  substance  of  each  Speci- 
fication was  expressed  in  the  words  of  the  Appellee. 
Dr.  Briggs  was  compelled  to  admit  before  the  lower 
Court,  as  he  has  admitted  before  this  Assembly,  that 
the  Specifications  set  forth  by  the  Committee  were  ex- 
pressed in  the  very  language  of  the  Inaugural  Address. 

In  this  way,  questions  of  fact  were  for  the  most  part 
eliminated  from  the  case.  I  regret,  however,  that  at  a 
later  stage  of  the  proceedings,  in  his  argument  before 
this  Court,  when  referring  to  the  Specifications,  the 
Appellee  asserts  :  "  Yes,  these  are  my  words.  I  admit 
u  that,  but  I  do  not  admit  the  facts  stated  therein." 

In  the  ordinary  affairs  of  life,  such  a  statement  would 
be  looked  upon  as  a  quibble,  I  will  not  use  a  stronger 
word,  but  I  do  most  earnestly  object  to  a  Presbyterian 
Minister  and  Professor  of  Theology  delivering  an 
elaborate  Inaugural  Address,  and  then,  when  chal- 
lenged before  the  Courts  of  the  Church,  answering : 
"  Yes,  these  are  my  words.  I  admit  that,  but  I  do  not 
"  admit  the  facts  stated  therein." 


349 

I  shall  give  you  but  one  other  illustration  of  the  style 
of  defence  resorted  to  in  his  argument,  by  the  Appellee. 
It  is  in  connection  with  Charge  VIII.,  which  you  will 
find  on  page  69  of  the  printed  document  (page  75  of 
this  volume).  There  Dr.  Briggs  is  charged  with  teach- 
ing "that  Sanctification  is  not  complete  at  death." 
The  Charge  alleges  that  this  is  contrary  to  the  doctrine 
of  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Standards  of  the  Church, 
"that  the  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  at 
"once  made  perfect  in  holiness."  Notice  that  the 
Charge  says  "at  once." 

On  page  72  of  the  printed  document  (page  78  of  this 
volume)  will  be  found  the  citations  from  the  Standards 
upon  which  the  Prosecuting  Committee  relied  to  sus- 
tain its  position. 

The  Appellee  holds  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
Standards  to  justify  such  a  claim.  You  have  heard  his 
argument.  In  addition  to  the  strong  and  explicit 
statement  of  Section  I.,  Chapter  XXXII.  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  there  quoted,  where  the  word  immediately 
is  used,  the  answer  to  Question  86  of  the  Larger  Cate- 
chism, as  cited,  contains  these  words:  "The  Com- 
"  munion  in  glory  with  Christ,  which  the  members  of 
"  the  invisible  Church  enjoy  immediately  after  death." 
"Immediately,"  according  to  Dr.  Briggs,  does  not 
mean  "at  once."  In  addition  to  the  quotations  from 
the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Larger  Catechism,  the 
Prosecuting  Committee  also  cited  the  answer  to 
Question  37  in  the  Shorter  Catechism  :  "The  souls  of 
"  believers  are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in  holiness, 
"  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory." 

It  is  difficult  for  men  who  are  familiar  with,  and  ac- 
cept in  sincerity  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms 
of  the  Westminster  Standards,  to  discover  any  basis 
for  such  a  claim  as  that  made  by  Dr.  Briggs  in  this 
matter.  If  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
are  ambiguous  at  this  important  point,  they  undoubt- 
edly need  revision. 


350 

I  will  pass  from  the  question  of  the  regularity 
and  sufficiency,  both  as  to  form  and  legal  effect,  of  the 
amended  Charges  and  Specifications  upon  which  the 
Appellee  was  arraigned  in  the  Court  below,  and  to 
which  he  has  made  such  extended  reference  in  his  argu- 
ment before  this  Court,  by  simply  assuring  you  that 
these  Charges  and  Specifications,  every  one  of  them, 
were  drawn  in  the  strictest  compliance  with  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
which  you  have  all  vowed  to  sustain.  The  Charges  are 
clear ;  the  words  of  the  Specifications,  as  alleged,  are 
admitted  by  the  Appellee  to  be  true  ;  the  proofs  cited 
from  the  Scriptures  and  the  Standards,  placed  beside 
the  specifications,  show  that  the  Appellee' s  words  in 
the  Inaugural  Address  are  contrary  to  the  Scriptures 
and  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and 
therefore  each  of  the  amended  Charges  and  Specifica- 
tions should  have  been  sustained  by  the  Presbytery. 

The  Doctrines  of  the  Charges  are  Essential. 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  by  the  Appellee  about 
the  doctrines,  with  which  the  Charges  are  concerned, 
not  being  essential.  The  fact  that  any  doctrine  is  for- 
mulated and  set  forth  in  the  Standards  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  is  presumptive  evidence  that  such  doc- 
trine is  essential,  when  taken  in  connection  with  judi- 
cial proceedings  conducted  under  our  Book  of 
Discipline.  When  a  prosecution  like  this  has  been 
begun,  in  compliance  with  its  Constitution,  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  is  not  required  to  prove  that  its 
Standards  are  right.  The  burden  of  proof  is  upon  the 
accused,  and  he  must  show  that  his  teaching  is  within 
the  Standards.  The  fact  that  the  doctrine  is  in  the 
Standards,  makes  it  incumbent  upon  one  who  has 
taken  the  ordination  vow,  to  show  that  his  views,  when 
thus  challenged,  are  in  harmony  with  or  not  contrary 
to  the  doctrines  of  the  Standards. 


351 

This  is  not  a  Criminal  Proceeding. 

I  will  pause  to  illustrate  this  for  a  moment.  It  has 
been  claimed  by  the  Appellee  and  his  supporters,  that 
this  is  in  the  nature  of  a  criminal  proceeding.  I  do  not 
like,  and  have  always  resisted  that  suggestion.  It  is,  I 
insist,  rather  a  question  of  contract,  of  whether  the 
Appellee's  ordination  vow  has  been  complied  with.  I 
have  never  used  this  illustration  before,  and  would  not 
do  so  now,  if  it  had  not  been  so  frequently  urged  by 
the  other  side  in  this  case. 

Suppose,  when  a  prisoner  is  brought  into  a  criminal 
court,  the  judge  being  on  the  bench,  the  prosecuting 
officer  presents  the  proof  to  sustain  the  charge,  and  the 
prisoner  says,  "I  admit  the  facts  as  charged."  What 
is  the  result  3  The  judge  says  the  statute  is  clear.  The 
facts  are  admitted.    Judgment  will  pass. 

But  what  if  the  prisoner  should  say,  "Oh,  Judge, 
don't  give  that  judgment.  I  am  not  at  all  convinced 
that  the  law  under  which  your  Court  is  sitting,  or  the 
section  of  the  statutes  that  you  are  construing,  is  a 
beneficent  or  good  law,  or  that  you  have  construed  the 
law  aright.  I  must  be  convinced  upon  all  these  points 
before  you  can  pass  sentence  upon  me  "  %  The  judge 
would  probably  say  :  "Prisoner,  your  duty  is  to  con- 
form to  the  law.  My  duty  is  to  determine,  upon  the 
evidence  before  me,  whether  you  are  guilty  or  not." 
What  court  would  listen  to  such  a  plea  from  a 
prisoner?  "You  cannot  convict  me,  you  cannot 
sentence  me,  until  you  have  satisfied  me  of  the 
soundness  of  the  law,  or  that  the  statute  you  propose 
to  enforce  is  the  law,  or  that  it  is  essential,  or  that  in 
the  interest  of  justice  it  ought  to  be  enforced."  ~No 
intelligent  judge  would  listen  to  such  words  for  a 
minute.  The  prisoner  would  pass  forth  and  the  Court 
would  proceed  to  its  other  and  usual  duties. 


352 

The  Grounds  of  Appeal  and  Specifications 
of  Error. 

I  now  wish  to  direct  your  attention  to  the  grounds  of 
appeal  and  the  specifications  of  error  alleged,  which 
have  already  been  passed  upon,  found  in  order  and  en- 
tertained by  this  General  Assembly. 

There  are  several  grounds  of  appeal ;  there  are  many 
specifications  of  error.  This  is  no  fault  of  the  Prose- 
cuting Committee.  It  is  simply  because  so  many  errors 
were  committed  by  the  Court  below.  In  the  perform- 
ance of  its  duty  to  the  whole  Church,  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  exercise  its  judg- 
ment and  eliminate  or  not  notice  any  of  the  errors 
committed  at  the  trial  by  the  Presbytery.  Those  errors 
have  been  specified  and  brought  here  on  appeal,  in 
strict  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  not  because  the  Committee  wished  to  do  so, 
but  because  the  errors  were  committed  by  the  Court 
below. 

The  Appellee  is  mistaken  in  saying  that  the  Appeal 
has  been  taken  upon  all  the  grounds  provided  for  in 
the  Book  of  Discipline.  Only  five  out  of  the  six 
grounds  of  appeal  specifically  mentioned  in  Section 
95  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  have  been  alleged  by  the 
Prosecuting  Committee. 

If  the  Prosecuting  Committee  had  been  at  liberty  to 
consult  its  own  wishes  it  would  have  presented  a  much 
shorter  document,  with  fewer  grounds  of  appeal  and 
not  so  many  specifications  of  error,  but  the  Committee 
felt  that  the  Constitution  held  it  to  a  strict  responsi- 
bility and  compelled  it,  in  taking  the  Appeal,  to  specify 
all  the  errors  committed,  however  tedious  their  recital 
may  be  to  the  members  of  this  Court. 

In  so  far  as  the  doctrinal  issues  involved  in  this  case 
are  concerned,  I  should  be  perfectly  willing  to  submit 
the  case  to  the  Assembly,  as  it  has  been  presented  by 
my  colleague,  Dr.  Lampe. 


353 

Many  of  the  Appellee's  statements  and  arguments 
have  been  already  anticipated  by  my  colleague.  Some 
of  the  Appellee's  propositions  are  hardly  worthy  of 
extended  answer  or  denial.  In  any  event,  I  shall  not 
take  the  time  of  the  Court  to  traverse  many  of  them. 
Some  of  the  statements  made  during  his  argument, 
however,  require  some  correction,  and  these  corrections 
I  shall  make  as  briefly  as  possible. 

First  Ground  of  Appeal.      Irregularity  in  the 
Proceedings  of  the  Presbytery. 

The  striking  out  by  the  Presbytery  of  Amended 
Charges  IV.  and  VII. ,  in  spite  of  what  was  said  yes- 
terday, by  the  Appellee,  was  irregular  and  illegal. 

(a)  Charges  IV.  and  VII.  were  not  new  Charges. 

(b)  The  doctrines  referred  to  in  these  Charges  had 
not  been  retracted  by  the  Appellee,  but  had  been  re- 
affirmed and  republished  by  him. 

(c)  It  was  not  in  the  interest  or  furtherance  of  justice 
that  they  should  be  struck  out. 

Dr.  Lampe,  in  his  opening  argument,  has  already 
explained  to  you  the  views  of  the  Committee  as  to 
these  amended  Charges  IV.  and  VII. 

Charge  IV. — Predictive  Prophecy. 

I  shall  now  refer  briefly  to  the  statements  concerning 
Charge  IV.,  relating  to  Predictive  Prophecy,  which 
have  been  made  by  the  Appellee  during  his  argument 
in  this  Court. 

I  am  sorry  to  say  that  this  is  not  the  first  time  that 
this  passage  from  the  Inaugural  Address  relating  to 
Predictive  Prophecy,  and  dealt  with  in  amended 
Charge  IV.,  has  been  under  discussion  in  the  Courts 
of  the  Church. 


354 

Kuenen  may  have  shown  that  if  we  insist  upon  the 
fulfillment  of  the  details  of  Old  Testament  Prophecy, 
much  of  it  has  been  reversed  by  history.  The  Presby- 
terian Church  does  not  accept  this  view,  nor  quote  it 
with  approval. 

But  the  question  is  not  what  Kuenen  may  or  may 
not  have  said  or  shown.  The  question  is  as  to  the 
categorical  statement  of  the  Appellee,  which  he  has 
affirmed  in  four  successive  editions  of  the  Inaugural 
Address,  namely,  that  the  great  body  of  the  Messianic 
prediction  has  not  only  never  been  fulfilled,  but  cannot 
now  be  fulfilled.  But  why  I  For  the  reason  that  we 
insist  upon  the  fulfillment  of  the  details  3  No.  But, 
to  quote  the  words  of  the  Appellee,  ' '  for  the  reason 
that  its  own  time  has  passed  forever."  This  is  similar 
to  the  case  of  one  who  might  say  the  prediction  about 
Nineveh  was  not  fulfilled  because  God  recalled  His 
decree.  Jesus  Christ,  in  insisting  upon  the  jots  and 
tittles  of  fulfillment,  sufficiently  disposes  of  Kuenen' s 
suggestion.  And  the  Appellee's  unconditional  state- 
ment, with  its  additional  reason,  remains  reaffirmed 
and  unretracted. 

Suppose  that  we  do  insist  upon  the  fulfillment  of 
the  details  of  predictive  prophecy,  then  our  Bible,  ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Briggs,  becomes  fallible,  untrustworthy  ; 
its  truth  is  not  in  the  written  word,  throughout,  but 
only  in  the  essentials  which  are  to  be  determined  by 
each  man  for  himself. 

Whatever  the  meaning  of  the  statement  quoted  from 
Kuenen  may  be,  or  whatever  the  orthodoxy  of  the 
Appellee's  book  on  Messianic  Prophecy  may  be,  the 
statement  of  the  Inaugural  Address  remains  as  he  spoke 
and  published  it,  is  still  reaffirmed  and  has  never  been 
retracted:  "The  great  body  of  Messianic  prediction 
has  not  only  never  been  fulfilled,  but  cannot  now  be 
fulfilled,  for  the  reason  that  its  own  time  has  passed 
forever." 


355 

At  the  time  when  Charge  IV.  was  struck  out  by 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  sitting  as  a  Judicatory, 
the  case  had  not  yet  come  before  the  Court  on  its 
merits. 

The  alleged  disclaimer  of  the  accused,  which  was 
given  as  one  of  the  reasons  for  striking  out  amended 
Charge  IV.,  was  nothing  more  than  a  plea  of  not  guilty, 
introduced  to  affect  the  sufficiency  and  the  form  and 
legal  effect  of  the  indictment.  But  in  the  successive 
editions  of  the  Inaugural  Address,  notwithstanding 
the  alleged  disclaimers,  the  words  of  the  Inaugural, 
above  quoted,  still  appear,  unconditionally  stated. 
They  have  never  been  withdrawn.  And  the  Appellee 
now  stands  before  this  Court,  reaffirming  that  the  great 
body  of  Messianic  prediction  not  only  has  not,  but 
cannot  be  fulfilled,  because  its  own  time  has  passed 
forever. 

Dr.  Lampe  showed  to  you .  yesterday  that  the  dual 
authorship  of  Isaiah  was  asserted  by  the  Appellee 
upon  the  naturalistic  principle  that  a  prophet  must  be 
limited  by  his  own  circumstances  in  making  his  pre- 
dictions. According  to  the  Appellee,  one  who  might 
prophesy  the  invasion  of  the  Assyrians  could  not  fore- 
tell the  captivity  at  Babylon.  Under  such  limitations 
upon  predictive  prophecy,  as  are  thus  set  by  Dr. 
Briggs,  it  might  well  be  asked,  How  could  the  ancient 
prophet  of  the  Hebrew  Monarchy  foresee  and  foretell 
the  advent  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  ? 

Charge  VII.Redemption  after  Death. 

I  will  now  call  your  attention  to  the  statements  made 
by  the  Appellee  during  his  argument  before  this  Court 
concerning  amended  Charge  VII.,  relating  to  his  teach- 
ing, "that  the  processes  of  redemption  extend  to  the 
world  to  come  in  the  case  of  many  who  die  in  sin." 

The  disclaimers  of  the  Appellee,  with  respect  to  the 
doctrine  here  charged,  have  been  made  before  the 


356 

Directors  of  Union  Seminary,  before  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York,  and  again  before  this  Court.  But  as  my 
colleague,  Dr.  Lampe,  in  his  opening  argument,  clearly 
proved,  the  doctrine  of  Redemption  in  the  Middle  State 
has  been  affirmed  again  and  again  in  the  Inaugural 
Address,  and  in  the  writings  of  the  Appellee  referred 
to  therein. 

Dr.  Briggs  claimed  in  your  presence,  yesterday,  that 
his  doctrine  of  Redemption  had  not  been  properly  un- 
derstood. It  is  upon  his  own  definition  of  Redemption 
that  amended  Charge  VII.  may  be  most  evidently 
proved.  Redemption,  according  to  Dr.  Briggs,  as  stated 
by  him  yesterday,  includes  all  the  principal  processes 
of  grace.  It  includes  Regeneration,  Justification,  Re- 
pentance, Faith,  Sanctification  and  Glorification.  But 
we  are  further  informed  by  Dr.  Briggs  that  the  whole 
race  of  man  is  redeemed  ;  and  therefore  the  process  of 
redemption  must  go  on  in  every  man.  Every  man  must 
have  faith  and  repentance,because  the  whole  race  of  man 
is  redeemed,  and  this,  as  Dr.  Briggs  informs  us,  cannot 
be  accomplished  by  the  selection  of  a  limited  number 
from  the  mass  of  men.  It  is,  he  says,  only  the  irre- 
trievably bad  who  are  lost.  It  is  therefore  reasonable 
to  infer,  that  a  man  who  believes  that  we  are  justified 
by  faith,  and  who  believes  that  justification  must  pre- 
cede sanctification,  must  necessarily  hold  that  those 
who  are  unbelievers  in  this  world,  must  believe  in  the 
world  to  come,  otherwise  they  are  never  justified. 

Disclaimers  to  have  been  Effective  should 
have  been  under  oath. 

The  Appellee,  in  commenting  upon  his  own  refusal  to 
take  the  oath  or  affirmation,  before  the  Court  below, 
unintentionally  perhaps,  presented  an  argument  in 
favor  of  his  being  required  to  take  such  an  oath,  which 
reinforces  the  wise  provision  of  Section  61  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline.    He  asked,  in  substance,    "Why  the 


357 

extracts  from  the  Inaugural,  unsworn  to,  should  be 
good  and  competent  evidence  for  the  committee,  and 
yet  the  defendant's  extracts  from  the  Inaugural  should 
require  his  oath  or  affirmation  for  their  verification  ? " 

Is  it  not  plain  that  if  the  defendant  had  taken  the 
oath,  and  been  examined,  these  questions  of  disclaimer 
might  have  been  settled  at  the  proper  time,  and  a  due 
renunciation,  of  the  doctrine  of  Redemption  after 
death,  might  then  have  been  effective  ? 

The  difficulty  has  been  that  the  case  was  on  trial  be- 
fore a  Judicatory  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  not 
before  the  Directors  of  a  Seminary.  The  case  has  been 
on  trial  under  a  certain  code  of  procedure,  and  upon 
a  document  which  has  been  often  reaffirmed,  in  spite 
of  the  alleged  disclaimers,  which  have  never  been 
properly  submitted  to  that  Court,  in  the  form 
prescribed  by  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

Second  Ground  of  Appeal.      Receiving  Improper 
Testimony. 

Although  the  improper  evidence  introduced  by  the 
Appellee  with  the  approval  of  the  Moderator  of  the 
lower  Court,  referred  to  in  the  second  Ground  of  Ap- 
peal, was  declared  to  be  competent ;  the  introduction 
of  said  evidence  was  accomplished  in  private,  without 
notice  being  given  to  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  or  to 
the  Judicatory. 

A  part  of  the  evidence  thus  introduced  consisted, 
upon  the  Appellee's  own  admission,  of  the  writings  of 
rationalistic  and  non-Presbyterian  authorities,  and  it 
did  not  have  those  invincible  qualities  attributed  to  it 
by  the  Appellee.  The  Prosecuting  Committee  was 
only  anxious  that  the  Court  should  have  a  trustworthy 
stenographic  record  of  its  proceedings,  and  did  not 
appeal  because  of  the  character  of  the  evidence  thus 
improperly  introduced  as  it  was  not  objected  to  upon 


358 

that  ground  at  the  trial.  The  committee's  objec- 
tion then  was,  and  the  present  appeal  charges,  that  said 
testimony  was  improper  because  of  the  time,  the  cir- 
cumstances and  the  irregular  manner  of  its  introduc- 
tion. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true,  as  we  saw  from  the  portion 
of  the  stenographic  report  read  by  Dr.  Francis  Brown 
yesterday,  that  a  protest  was  made  by  members  of  the 
Presbytery  against  the  introduction  of  this  evidence 
and  the  improper  manner  in  which  it  was  done. 

It  is  also  true  that  the  protest  was  answered  by  a 
Committee  appointed  for  that  purpose,  and  that  the 
Presbytery  accepted  the  answer  of  the  Committee, 
thus  confirming  the  ruling  of  the  Moderator  and  its 
own  subsequent  decision  as  to  admitting  the  evidence 
referred  to.  All  these  details,  brought  out  so  clearly 
by  Dr.  Brown,  demonstrate  the  truth  of  the  Prosecut- 
ing Committee' s  position  and  confirms  the  allegations 
of  the  Appellant,  set  out  in  the  Second  Ground  of 
Appeal  and  the  specifications  thereunder.  There  is 
no  question  as  to  the  irregular  and  improper  manner 
in  which  the  said  evidence  was  introduced,  the  fact 
that  the  Moderator  ruled  it  in,  and  the  Presbytery 
sustained  his  ruling,  only  shows  that  the  error  alleged, 
when  once  made,  was,  with  all  the  facts  before  it, 
fully  confirmed  by  the  Presbytery  and  should  now 
be  overruled  by  this  Assembly. 


Third  Ground  op  Appeal.    Declining  to  Receive 
Important  Testimomy. 

As  the  questions  involved  in  the  two  specifications  of 
error  under  this  Ground  of  Appeal  have  already  been 
sufficiently  considered,  when  discussing  the  first  and 
second  specifications  under  the  First  Ground  of  Ap- 
peal, they  do  not  require  further  attention  at  this  time. 


359 

Fourth  Ground  of  Appeal.      Manifestation   of 
Prejudice  in  the  Conduct  of  the  Case. 

The  specifications  of  error  alleged  under  the  Fourth 
Ground  of  Appeal  afford  an  instructive  view  of  the 
composition  and  temper  of  the  lower  Court,  where  this 
case  has  so  lately  been  tried.  It  is  conceiveable  that 
in  a  public  assembly,  where  no  judicial  case  was  in 
progress,  rash,  prejudiced,  and  even  unparliamentary 
language  might  be  used  by  those  taking  part  in  its 
deliberations.  But,  in  a  Court,  especially  in  a  Court 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  which  had  been  solemnly 
charged,  so  that  the  judges  sitting  therein  might  feel 
their  responsibilities,  it  is  incompatible  with  a  fair 
hearing  and  fair  decision,  that  such  judges  or  jurors 
should  be  permitted  to  make  appeals  ad  populum 
when  grave  issues  are  on  trial  before  them. 

It  is  possible  that  such  exhibitions  might  be  over- 
looked as  the  expression  of  feeling  on  the  part  of  ill- 
balanced  or  excitable  Ministers  and  Elders  who  were 
prevented  by  emotion  from  being  judicial.  But  the  law 
cannot  take  cognizance  of  such  excuses  as  these.  The 
blood  of  judges  should  not  boil  when  one  with  whom 
they  sympathize,  has  been  fairly  met  in  argument,  nor 
should  the  blood  of  such  judges  boil  at  the  citation  of 
great  Presbyterian  authorities.  To  sum  up  a  case 
against  a  defendant  is  not  a  fresh  attack,  and  there  is 
no  injustice,  not  even  seeming  injustice,  in  answering 
properly,  and  logically,  ill-considered  and  invalid 
arguments,  even  when  made  by  one  assuming  to  be  a 
great  scholar  and  theologian. 

But  some  of  the  utterances  set  out  in  the  first  speci- 
fication of  error  under  the  Fourth  Ground  of  Appeal, 
cannot  be  justified  by  attributing  them  to  the  unbridled 
passion  of  inexperienced  men.  There  is  prejudice  mani- 
fested when  an  eminent  Minister  describes  a  legally  and 
carefully  drawn  indictment,  as  giving  the  "  lie  direct " 
to  the  accused.  Trials  cannot  be  brought  to  an  end  when- 


360 

ever  the  accused  pleads  not  guilty,  by  denying  or  dis- 
claiming the  offence  charged,  nor  should  the  blood  of 
Presbyterian  judges  boil  if  Presbyterian  doctrine  is 
successfully  defended  in  its  Judicatories. 

The  decision  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1892,  referred 
to  in  the  fifth  specification  of  error,  under  the  Fourth 
Ground  of  Appeal,  was  made  in  a  judicial  case,  is  final, 
and  cannot  be  reviewed.  But  if  it  were  to  be  reviewed, 
it  wo  aid  be  found  that  more  than  one  of  those,  who 
were  then  declared  by  the  General  Assembly  to  have 
manifested  prejudice  when  sitting  as  judges,  not  only 
deliberated  and  voted  at  the  recent  trial,  but  again 
took  the  floor  as  advocates  when  they  should  have 
kept  their  places  as  judges. 

Besides  all  this,  in  the  trial  of  a  Professor  in  Union 
Seminary  for  utterances  published  in  an  Inaugural 
Address,  you  find  among  the  judges  or  jurors,  as  you 
may  see  fit  to  call  them,  named  in  the  sixth  specification 
of  error,  those  who  had  in  a  manner,  and  in  their  official 
capacity,  become  responsible  for  the  publication  of  the 
alleged  errors,  who  had  approved  and  published  the 
Inaugural  Address,  and  who  justified  themselves  and 
their  position,  by  voting  to  acquit  the  author  of  any 
offence  in  teaching  doctrines,  the  publication  of  which 
they  had  previously  approved. 

Previous  to  the  trial  of  Dr.  Briggs  in  the  Presbytery, 
the  Board  of  Directors  of  Union  Seminary  had  resolved 
to  sustain  him,  saying  "  We  will  stand  by  him."  At  a 
subsequent  meeting,  the  Board  of  Directors  "  considered 
1 '  the  action  of  the  Assembly  at  Detroit,  and  decided  that 
"  it  was  due  to  our  students  to  know  what  to  count 
"  upon  for  the  coming  year's  instruction,  and  that 
"  it  was  due  to  ourselves  and  Dr.  Briggs  that  we 
"  should  be  true  to  the  promise  we  had  made  to  stand 
"  by  him." 


361 

Notice  of  these  two  actions  taken  by  the  Board  of 
Directors  of  Union  Seminary  was  formally  communi- 
cated  by  Dr.  Hastings,  the  President  of  the  Seminary,  in 
behalf  of  the  Board  of  Directors,  to  the  General 
Assembly  at  Portland  (see  Minntes,  1892,  pages  56,  57). 
After  these  repeated  assurances  on  the  part  of  the 
Directors  of  Union  Seminary,  "to  stand  by  him," 
several  of  them  went  into  the  Court  of  the  Presby- 
tery as  judges  and  were  possibly  unprejudiced,  but  it 
is  a  noticeable  fact  that  each  of  them  voted  solidly 
upon  each  of  the  charges  and  specifications  to  acquit 
Dr.  Briggs,  thus  fully  redeeming  the  pledge  that  had 
been  officially  given  for  them,  in  advance  of  the  trial. 

I  must  here  add  a  word  with  respect  to  the  manifesta- 
tion of  prejudice  in  the  final  judgment  of  the  lower 
judicatory,  to  which  reference  is  made  in  specification 
fourth,  under  the  Fourth  Ground  of  Appeal.  The 
words  there  quoted  as  expressing  an  earnest  conviction 
that  the  grave  issues  involved  in  this  case  will  be  more 
wisely  and  justly  determined  by  calm  investigation 
and  fraternal  discussion  than  by  judicial  arraignment 
and  process,  exhibit  a  not  altogether  praiseworthy  dis- 
regard of  the  Constitution  of  the  Church  and  its  mode 
of  judicial  procedure.  In  rendering  a  judicial  decision 
it  is  not  the  part  of  an  unprejudiced  judge  to  suggest 
that  debate  about  alleged  offences  is  preferable  to  the 
execution  of  laws  which  he  has  vowed  to  maintain. 

Fifth  Ground  of  Appeal.    Mistake  or  Injustice 
in  the  Decision. 

The  Fifth  Ground  of  Appeal  is  concerned  with 
mistake  or  injustice  in  the  decision.  It  is  my  purpose 
to  confine  my  argument  under  this  head  wholly  to  the 
legal  questions  involved  in  some  of  the  specifications 
of  error  alleged  to  sustain  the  same.  I  desire  to  call 
your  attention  especially  to  one  or  two  of  these  specifi- 
cations, in  order  that  their  meaning  may  be  perfectly 
plain. 


362 

The  argument  of  the  Appellee,  with  respect  to  speci- 
fications first  and  second,  under  this  ground  of  appeal, 
deserves  a  moment's  consideration.  His  argument  was 
introduced  with  a  gentle  reproof  to  the  Prosecuting 
Committee,  suggesting  that  they  should  not  reason 
incorrectly,  or  that,  reasoning  correctly,  they  should 
be  sure  of  the  truth  of  their  premises.  All  question  as 
to  whether  the  specifications  were  relevant  to  the 
several  charges  or  not  was  removed,  not  by  the  opin- 
ion or  action  of  the  Appellee,  not  by  the  action  of  the 
Prosecuting  Committee,  but  by  the  action  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York  when  it  passed  upon  the  suffi- 
ciency in  form  and  legal  effect  of  the  amended  charges 
and  specifications. 

The  passages  quoted  in  your  presence  by  the 
Appellee,  from  his  defence,  were  first  spoken  when  the 
case  was  being  tried  on  the  merits  in  the  Presbytery. 
Unless  the  several  charges  and  specifications  had 
alleged  real  offences,  there  would  have  been  no  case 
for  the  Appellee  to  defend  before  the  Presbytery. 
While  specification  second,  under  this  last  ground  of 
appeal,  makes  this  perfectly  manifest,  it  is  possible 
that  a  few  words  may  be  necessary  to  correct  the  mis- 
apprehension of  the  Appellee,  which  he  may  have  com- 
municated to  others. 

Notice  the  nature  of  a  charge  in  relation  to  the 
specifications  cited  to  sustain  it. 

A  charge  alleges  a  certain  offence,  and  cites  the  law 
against  which  the  offence  has  been  committed.  The 
specification  contains  the  necessary  facts  relied  upon 
to  prove  the  offence  alleged.  If  the  extracts  from  the 
Inaugural  cited  in  the  specifications,  the  utterance  and 
publication  of  which  the  defendant  fully  admitted, 
did  not  prove  the  alleged  offences,  then  the  charges 
and  specifications  would  have  been  insufficient  in  form 
and  legal  effect.  When  the  sufficiency  in  form  and 
legal  effect  of  the  charges  and  specifications  had  been 


363 

sustained  by  the  Presbytery,  it  was  by  that  act, 
decided,  that  if  the  accused  had  spoken  and  published 
the  words  found  in  the  specifications,  he  was  guilty  of 
the  offence  charged,  otherwise  he  would  not  be  put  on 
his  defence. 

At  that  stage  of  the  judicial  proceedings  it  is  still 
open  for  a  judicatory  to  decide,  that  even  if  the  alleged 
erroneous  doctrine  had  been  uttered  by  the  accused,  it 
was  not  an  offence ;  or  it  might  be  decided  that  the 
utterance  contained  in  the  specification  does  not  sus- 
tain the  allegation  in  the  charge. 

If  the  Presbytery  had  decided  these  questions  in  this 
way,  the  charges  and  specifications  would  have  been 
or  should  have  been  found  insufficient  in  form  and  legal 
effect.  But  after  striking  out  Charges  IV.  and  VII.,  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  found  the  remaining  charges 
and  specifications  in  order  and  sufficient  to  place  the 
accused  upon  his  defence  (Book  of  Discipline,  Sec. 
22  ;  Printed  Document,  p.  86  ;  page  92  of  this  volume). 
What  then  remained  for  the  Prosecuting  Committee  to 
prove  ?  Simply  that  the  accused  had  spoken  and  pub- 
lished the  words  from  the  Inaugural  quoted  in  the 
specifications.  The  merits  of  the  case  involved  simply 
the  question  of  fact.  But  the  fact  was  openly  admitted 
by  the  accused  that  he  had  spoken  and  published  the 
words  quoted  in  the  specifications.  The  proof  was 
complete.  The  verdict  should  have  been  guilty,  and 
each  of  the  charges  and  specifications  should  have  been 
sustained. 

The  case  on  its  merits  is  a  jury  case.  It  is  a  question 
of  fact,  not  of  law.  The  peculiarity  of  the  case  before 
you,  as  well  as  in  the  trial  below,  is  that  the  utterances 
of  the  accused,  relied  upon  by  the  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee to  sustain  the  charges,  have  all  been  admitted 
by  him.  Did  he  utter  them  or  not  ?  That  was  the 
question  on  its  merits.  There  was  no  question  of  fact 
but  that.   The  facts  were  admitted,  and  the  only  course 


364 

left  to  the  Court  was  to  bring  in  a  verdict  of  guilty. 
It  was  gross  error  on  the  part  of  the  Presbytery,  under 
such  circumstances,  to  acquit  the  accused. 

From  this  it  follows  that  had  the  Appellee  conformed 
his  reasoning  to  the  laws  of  discursive  thought,  in  the 
conduct  of  his  defence,  before  the  lower  Court,  he 
should  either  have  declined  to  defend  himself  where  no 
offence  was  charged  or  should  have  pleaded  guilty  to 
each  and  all  of  the  several  charges.  The  Appellee 
does  not  and  cannot  deny  that  the  specifications  relied 
upon  to  prove  the  charges  are  facts.  But  if  he  denies 
that  they  sustain  the  charges,  he  places  himself  in 
direct  conflict  with  the  decision  of  the  New  York 
Presbytery,  which  had  already  passed  upon  the  suffi- 
ciency, both  as  to  form  and  legal  effect,  of  the  charges 
and  specifications. 

The  facts  of  which  the  Appellee  complains,  are 
quotations  from  his  own  writings.  The  logic  of  which 
the  Appellee  complains,  is  the  logic,  not  of  the  Prose- 
cuting Committee,  but  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York. 

I  will  not  occupy  the  time  of  this  Court  by  making 
extended  comment  upon  the  remaining  specifications 
of  error  under  the  Fifth  Ground  of  Appeal. 

The   Final    Judgment  of  the    Presbytery    was 
Contradictory  and  Illegal. 

There  are,  however,  several  points  connected  with 
the  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery,  specified  as  errors 
under  the  Fifth  Ground  of  Appeal,  which  the 
Appellee  attempted  to  traverse  in  his  argument,  to 
which  I  must  call  attention. 

The  alleged  disclaimers  made  by  the  Appellee 
were  accepted  by  the  lower  Court,  as  grounds  for  ac- 
quittal, although,  in  fact  and  in  law,  they  had  no  more 
force  or  effect  than  the  formal  plea  of  not  guilty,  which 
was   subsequently    made    by    him.      The    Inaugural 


365 

Address  had  been  thrice  republished  and,  in  the 
preface  to  the  third  and  fourth  editions,  the  doctrines 
supposed  to  have  been  disclaimed  in  the  answers 
to  the  questions  submitted  by  the  Directors  of  Union 
Seminary,  and  before  the  Presbytery,  were  spe- 
cifically republished  and  reaffirmed  by  the  Appellee. 
And  he  now  stands  before  this  Court,  reaffirming  and 
declining  to  retract  or  withdraw  any  part  of  the  Inau- 
gural Address. 

The  members  of  the  lower  Court,  bound  by  their 
vows  of  ordination,  had  accepted  and  adopted  the 
Scripture  and  the  Standards.  They  were  charged  in 
this  judicial  case  to  decide  whether  the  doctrines  of  the 
defendant  agreed  or  disagreed  with  the  Scripture  and 
Standards.  In  the  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery 
they  declared  that  the  said  doctrines  were  not  out  of 
harmony  with  the  Standards,  although  at  the  same 
time  they  affirmed  that  they  did  not  intend  to  say  that 
they  approved  of  the  defendant's  views,  which  they 
had  declared  to  be  not  unorthodox. 

So  that,  even  assuming  that  the  verdict  of  the 
trial  Court  should  have  been  in  favor  of  the  accused 
(an  assumption  which  the  facts  would  not  in  the 
slightest  degree  justify),  the  decision  and  final  judg- 
ment of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in  this  case  is 
contradictory  and  illegal. 

The  lower  Court  was  not  called  upon  to  express  its 
views  with  respect  to  the  Constitution,  laws  and  disci- 
pline of  the  Church.  Its  final  judgmen  t  should  have  been 
delivered  as  a  verdict  based  upon  the  facts  of  the  case. 
Undoubtedly  the  issue  was  somewhat  confused  by  the 
fact  that  while  the  accused  was  before  the  lower  Court, 
reaffirming  and  defending  the  Inaugural  Address  and 
admitting  that  he  had  uttered  and  published  the  doc- 
trines alleged  by  the  Committee  to  be  erroneous,  yet 
yet  some  of  the  advocate  judges  were  pressing  upon 
their  associate  judges  the  effect  of  so-called  disclaimers, 


366 

which  did  not  and  were  not  intended  by  the  accused  to 
disclaim  or  retract  any  of  the  errors  charged. 

But,  in  spite  of  the  so-called  disclaimers,  in  spite  of  the 
attempts  to  avoid  a  settlement  of  the  questions  at  issue, 
without  responsibility  on  the  part  of  the  judges,  it  is 
perfectly  plain  to  any  one  who  has  read  the  specifica- 
tions of  error  in  this  appeal,  that  the  judgment  of  the 
lower  Court  was  contradictory  and  illegal  and  should 
not  stand.  The  grave  issues  involved  in  this  case  can- 
not be  decided  by  occasional  polemics  concerning 
Presbyterian  doctrine.  The  matter  is  one  which  must 
be  determined  by  its  courts  according  to  the  Constitu- 
tion and  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

As  I  have  already  shown,  the  admissions  of  Dr. 
Briggs  with  respect  to  the  passages  of  his  Inaugural 
cited  in  the  several  specifications,  settled  all  questions 
of  fact  which  were  at  issue  in  the  lower  Judicatory. 

But  if  one  should  be  disposed  to  go  farther  and 
maintain  that  Mistake  and  Injustice  in  the  decision 
implies  mistake  and  injustice  in  dealing  with  the 
law  and  the  evidence,  I  am  prepared  briefly  to  bring 
before  the  General  Assembly  the  propositions  which  I 
think  have  been  satisfactorily  proved  by  the  Prosecut- 
ing Committee  in  its  opening  argument  and  inade- 
quately answered  by  the  Apellee  in  his  argument  to 
which  you  have  given  such  careful  attention. 

Some  of  the  fundamental  questions  discussed  by  the 
Appellee,  in  the  course  of  his  argument,  should,  how- 
ever, be  now  referred  to. 

If  we  begin  with  the  statements  of  the  Inaugural 
Address,  to  which  the  Appellee  still  adheres,  the  task 
is  comparatively  easy.  The  whole  series  of  answers 
made  by  him  to  the  positions  of  the  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee can  be  shown  to  be  irrelevant. 

I  shall  take  up  briefly  and  in  their  order  the  points, 
against  which  the  Appellee  argued  so  fully,  but  which 


367 

the  Prosecuting  Committee  have  been  able  clearly  to 
establish,  from  evidence  furnished  by  Dr.  Briggs  in 
his  Inaugural  Address. 

The  Reason  as  a  Fountain  of  Divine  Authority. 

The  Appellee  has  taught  that  the  Church  and  the 
Reason  are  great  fountains  of  Divine  Authority.  That 
he  regards  them  as  divine  rules  of  faith,  independent 
of  the  Bible,  is  shown  by  his  explanations  and  illus- 
trations. The  proposition  of  Dr.  Briggs  that  the 
Church  and  the  Reason  are  sources  of  divine  authority 
has  been  explained  by  him  in  your  presence.  He 
holds  that  Martineau,  like  Spurgeon,  is  a  representa- 
tive Christian  whose  loving  certainty  and  joyous  con- 
fidence repose  not  on  an  infallible  rule  of  faith,  but 
upon  the  metaphysical  categories,  the  conscience  and 
the  religious  feeling.  This  he  still  asserts,  although 
Martineau  has  written  as  follows:  "The  blight  of 
birth-sin,  with  its  involuntary  perdition ;  the  scheme 
of  expiatory  redemption,  with  its  vicarious  salvation  ; 
the  incarnation,  with  its  low  postulates  of  God  and 
man,  and  its  unworkable  doctrine  of  two  natures  in 
one  person,  the  official  transmission  of  grace  through 
material  elements  in  the  keeping  of  a  consecrated 
corporation ;  the  second  coming  of  Christ  to  summon 
the  dead  and  part  the  sheep  from  the  goats  at  the 
general  judgment — all  are  the  growth  of  a  mythical 
literature,  or  Messianic  dream,  or  Pharisaic  theology, 
or  sacramental  superstition,  or  popular  apotheosis."  * 

The  Church  as  a  Fountain  of  Divine  Authority. 

Dr.  Briggs  has  also  taught  that  Newman,  finding 
the  Bible  inefficient,  found  divine  certainty  fixed  upon 
the  rock  of  the  papal  Church. 

The  defence  of  the  accused  in  the  lower  Court,  and 
again  in  your  presence,   was  that  there  is  a  divine 

*  Martineau's  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion,  p.  650. 


868 

influence  which  pervades  the  Church,  which  moves  the 
reason,  which  gives  efficacy  to  the  sacraments.  But 
the  authority  of  God  is  something  different  from  the 
divine  influence  ;  and  the  Bible  and  the  Standards  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  declare  that  divine  authority 
is  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures  alone. 

According  to  the  Appellee,  the  whole  race  of  man  is 
redeemed,  not  only  through  the  preaching  of  Christ 
as  an  objective  reality,  but  by  the  Church,  even  if 
the  Church  be  apostate,  or  by  the  Reason,  even  if  the 
Reason  deny  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  fact 
that  but  one  of  these  authorities  is  declared  by  the 
Appellee  to  be  infallible,  while  all  three  are  declared 
by  him  to  be  divine,  is  in  no  way  reassuring,  for  unless 
the  authority  be  infallible  it  cannot  be  divine. 


Dr.  Briggs'   Doctrine  of  the  Errancy  of 
Holy  Scripture. 

The  Appellee  has  taught,  as  the  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee has  proved,  doctrines  which  destroy  the  in- 
fallibility of  Holy  Scripture.  The  infallibility  of 
Holy  Scripture  is  adopted  in  the  ordination  vow  of  the 
Presbyterian  ministry,  and  is  plainly  taught  in  the 
Standards.  It  is,  in  fact,  the  fundamental  written  law 
of  the  Church.  If  men  are  unwilling  to  believe  that  the 
inspired  word  as  it  came  from  God  was  without  error, 
it  is  difficult  to  see  how  they  can  adopt  the  doctrine  of 
infallibility  for  that  word  as  we  have  it  now.  With 
this  doctrine  of  the  Appellee  that  Holy  Scripture 
contains  errors  which  may  have  been  in  the  originals, 
it  is  impossible  that  the  present  Scriptures  should  be 
infallible.  Unless  the  original  Word  was  without 
error,  it  is  impossible  that  infallibility  could  have  been 
imparted  to  it  by  the  long  line  of  transcribers. 


369 

The  mere  technical  question  of  the  mode  of  inspi- 
ration has  not  been  raised  by  the  Prosecuting  Com- 
mittee, except  in  so  far  as  it  has  maintained  that  what- 
ever is  inspired  of  God  is  true.  And  this  position  we 
hold  to  be  essential,  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Let  me  especially  direct 
your  attention  to  what  this  word  of  God  is  held  to  be 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Standards.  In  pre- 
senting, in  evidence,  the  answer  to  the  second  question 
in  the  Shorter  Catechism,  Dr.  Briggs  seemed  to  me 
to  lay  especial  emphasis  upon  the  word  "contained" 
as  if  the  terms  "Word  of  God"  and  "the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  "  were  not  co-extensive 
terms.  Is  it  true  that  the  Word  of  God  is  contained 
in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  or 
that  the  Word  of  God  is  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
Scriptures  \  According  to  the  Catechism,  the  Word  of 
God  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  in  the  light  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  it  may  be  seen  what  is  meant 
by  this.  It  is  not  the  greater  containing  the  lesser. 
The  Confession  of  Faith  (Chap.  I.,  Sec.  II.)  says :  "Under 
the  name  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  of  the  Word  of  God 
written,  are  now  contained  all  the  books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  which  are  these:"  then  follows  the 
list  of  the  books.  If  the  Word  of  God  is  contained  in 
these  Scriptures,  and  these  Scriptures  are  contained  in 
the  Word  of  God,  how  are  we  to  explain  the  difference 
of  statement  except  upon  the  ground  that  these  terms 
are  co-extensive. 

Authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch  and  Isaiah. 

The  questions  of  authenticity  with  respect  to  the 
Pentateuch  and  the  Prophecy  of  Isaiah,  present  no 
difficulties  of  proof.  That  the  Pentateuch  is  not  from 
the  hand  of  Moses,  and  that  there  are  two  authors  to 
Isaiah  are  propositions  which  the  accused  has  taught. 
And  he  has  admitted  in  his  defence,  and  before  this 
Assembly,  that  these  are  his  views.    The  Prosecuting 


370 

Committee,  by  reference  to  the  New  Testament,  as  well 
as  the  Old,  with  the  Bible  as  their  guide  and  not  the 
speculations  of  men,  has  insisted  that  these  are  essen- 
tial questions  ;  and  that  the  doctrine  here  contradicted 
by  the  Appellee  is  essential  doctrine. 

The  Presbyterian  Church,  to  which  we  belong,  is 
ready  to  debate  this  question  of  authenticity  with  its 
enemies.  But  the  question  of  authenticity  here,  and 
as  raised  by  Dr.  Briggs,  has  an  essential  importance, 
not  as  a  theory  of  criticism  but  as  a  question  of  dogma. 
And  the  dogma  which  is  here  imperilled  is  the  Deity 
and  absolute  truthfulness  of  Jesus  Christ.  To  deny  or 
even  to  doubt  His  word  is  to  offend  against  the  very 
essence  of  Presbyterian  doctrine. 

Dr.  Briggs'  Doctrine  of  Redemption  after  Death. 

Lastly,  the  doctrine  of  Redemption  in  another  world 
has  been  taught  by  the  Appellee,  and  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  was  permitted  to  deal  with  this  question 
only  partially  by  the  Court  below.  This  fact  was 
called  to  your  attention  when  I  referred  to  the  error 
committed  by  the  trial  Court  in  striking  out  Amended 
Charge  VII.  But  the  last  of  the  amended  charges 
(Charge  VIII.)  alleges  an  offence  which  was  admitted 
by  the  Appellee  before  the  lower  Court  and  has  been 
reaffirmed  by  him  in  your  presence.  It  is  the  offence 
of  teaching  that  there  is  a  continuation  of  the  process 
of  sanctification  after  death.  As  the  Presbytery  had 
found  this  Charge  VIII.  sufficient  in  form  and  legal 
effect  to  create  an  offence  if  proved,  and  as  the  accused 
in  that  Court  admitted,  as  he  has  repeated  here,  that 
he  holds  and  teaches  the  doctrine,  the  Presbytery 
should  have  sustained  the  charge,  and  the  error  it 
committed  in  not  doing  so,  should  be  overruled  and 
corrected  by  this  Court. 

Your  familiarity  with  the  great  doctrinal  issues  in- 
volved in  the  amended  charges  and  specifications  is  a 


371 

sufficient  reason  why  I  should  not  unnecessarily 
occupy  your  time  with  them,  so  I  have  abstained  from 
discussing  them  further  than  to  reply  to  the  argument 
of  the  Appellee  and  to  give  you  a  full  understanding 
of  their  relation  to  the  specifications  of  error  alleged 
in  the  Appeal  upon  which  this  Court  must  shortly 
pass. 

Toleration  and  Liberty. 

The  question  of  tolerance  and  liberty,  of  which  you 
have  heard  so  much  from  the  Appellee,  is  one  into 
which  I  shall  not  enter.  The  question  before  us  is  a 
judicial  question.  The  facts  are  before  you  in  the 
doctrines  of  the  Inaugural  Address — doctrines  which 
have  been  often  reaffirmed  by  the  accused,  but  never 
retracted.  I  ask  you  simply  to  judge  of  them  in  the 
light  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  in  the  light  of  our  historic 
Standards,  and  with  fidelity  to  the  truth  of  Almighty 
God. 

This  case  seems  to  me,  Moderator,  to  be  now  before 
the  General  Assembly  in  a  perfectly  intelligible  form. 
The  Appellant  has  presented  comprehensively  its 
evidence  and  argument ;  and  the  Appellee  has  had  full 
opportunity  to  be  heard.  It  is  now  the  duty  of  the 
Prosecuting  Committee  to  leave  this  important  case  in 
the  hands  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Church. 

We  close  our  work,  as  we  began  it,  with  a  simple 
desire  to  have  the  doctrines  of  the  Inaugural  Address 
compared  with  those  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  with 
the  object  of  deciding  whether  the  teaching  of  Dr. 
Briggs,  in  that  address,  constitutes  an  offence  or  not. 

The  sympathies  of  every  true  Presbyterian  must  be 
with  those  who  have  erred  and  are  deceived.  But 
there  is  a  higher  standard  of  action  than  sympathy. 
There  is  loyalty  to  the  Church,  to  the  Word  of  God, 
and  to  the  vows  which  we  have  made. 


872 

Every  Presbyterian  minister  is  a  representative  of 
his  Church.  If  he  teaches  error,  he  teaches  it  in  the 
name  of  the  Church  whose  orders  he  bears. 

It  seems  almost  incredible  that  the  Appellee,  after 
reaffirming  so  often,  the  alleged  erroneous  doctrines  for 
which  he  has  been  put  on  trial,  should  appear  before 
this  Court  with  a  series  of  orthodox  statements,  for  the 
utterance  of  which  he  is  not  and  has  never  been  on 
trial.  The  question  is  not  whether  he  has  once  or 
twenty  times  taught  what  was  orthodox.  The  trial  is 
based  upon  the  doctrines  of  the  Inaugural  Address, 
and  upon  those  doctrines  of  the  Inaugural  Address 
which  are  alleged  to  be  offences  against  Presbyterian 
doctrine. 

There  is  no  room  for  obscurity  here.  There  is  no 
reason  for  searching  the  works  of  the  Appellee,  pub- 
lished in  the  past,  to  reassure  yourself,  or  to  shake  the 
position  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee.  The  question 
is  this  :  Are  the  unretracted  doctrines  of  the  Inaugu- 
ral Address,  affirmed  and  published,  reaffirmed  and 
republished  so  many  times,  upon  which  are  based 
these  charges  and  specifications,  are  they  in  conformity 
with  the  Word  of  God  and  the  Standards  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  %    This  is  the  question,  and  this  only. 

The  array  of  authorities,  many  of  them  rationalistic 
writers,  which  the  Appellee  has  cited  in  opposition  to 
the  Presbyterian  doctrine  of  the  Scripture,  is  without 
doubt  imposing ;  and  all  scholarship  is  worthy  of  respect. 

I  am  aware,  however,  that  at  the  great  universities 
of  Europe,  there  are  many  jurists  of  the  the  highest 
learning,  who  defend  monarchy,  and  are  very  scornful 
in  the  expression  of  their  views  of  the  popular  institu- 
tions of  the  United  States.  But  as  a  citizen  loyal  to  the 
American  Constitution,  I  do  not  regulate  my  loyalty 
according  to  the  conclusions  of  foreign  doctrinaires. 


373 

In  like  manner,  those  of  ns  who  are  loyal  to  the 
Constitntion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  are  not 
called  npon  to  alter  our  views,  with  respect  to  our 
Presbyterian  Constitution  and  doctrine,  at  the  bidding 
of  unbelievers,  however  high  their  position.  Oxford 
Episcopalians  and  German  Rationalists  do  not  inter- 
pret the  Presbyterian  Constitution  and  doctrine ;  for 
Presbyterianism  has  a  history  and  has  claims  which 
do  not  need  the  support  of  any  one,  seeing  that  the 
foundation  is  Jesus  Christ  as  He  is  revealed  in  God's 
Holy  Word. 


374 


X. 


Appendix  containing  the  Judgment  op  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  and  Vote  of  Thanks  to  the 
Prosecuting  Committee. 


Report  of  the  Committee  appointed  to  formulate 
the  Judgment  of  the  Assembly  in  the  case. 


"  The  Rev.  George  D.  Baker,  D.  D.,  Chairman  of  the 
Sub-committee  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judgment  in 
Judical  Case  No.  1,  at  the  request  of  the  Committee, 
made  the  following  statement,  which  was  ordered  to 
be  recorded,  viz.:" 

"  When  the  Committee  of  fifteen  convened  this  morn- 
ing it  was  impressed  with  a  sense  of  responsibility 
which  seldom  falls  to  the  lot  of  men  to  bear.  We  all 
felt  that  the  very  first  thing  to  do  in  all  Christian  love 
and  courtesy,  was  to  appoint  a  committee  to  call  upon 
Dr.  Briggs,  and  give  him  an  opportunity  to  say  what- 
ever he  might  be  pleased  to  say,  in  view  of  the  dis- 
tressing circumstances.  There  was  a  prayer  in  our 
hearts  that  Dr.  Briggs  might  be  led  of  God  to  say 
something  which  would  relieve  the  painful  situation. 
I  regret  to  say  that  our  hope  in  this  regard  was  disap- 
pointed. Our  interview  was  frank,  kind  and  cordial 
to  the  last  degree ;  but  Dr.  Briggs  insisted  strenuously, 
positively,  irrevocably  upon  everything  that  he  had 
said  in  the  defense  which  he  made  when  brought  to 
the  bar  of  this  Court.  At  my  request,  he  gave  into 
my  hands  this  statement,  in  his  own  handwriting,  and 
bearing  his  own  signature,  which  I  will  read :" 


375 


"Cochran  House,  Jnne  1,  1893. 

"  To  the  .Rev.  Dr.  George  D.  Baker ;  Chairman  of  the 
Sub- committee  of  Committee  of  the  Assembly  ap- 
pointed to  formulate  a  judgment  in  the  case  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  U.  8.  A,  against  Prof. 
C.  A.  Briggs : 

"My  Dear  Sir: — In  accordance  with  your  request 
I  hereby  state  that  your  Committee  called  upon  me 
and  asked  me  if  I  had  anything  to  say  to  them  respect- 
ing the  disposition  of  the  case.  I  thereupon  said  that 
I  adhered  to  all  the  positions  taken  before  the  General 
Assembly,  and  had  nothing  further  to  say,  save  that 
the  Appellee  reserves  all  rights,  and  that  the  General 
Assembly  should  take  the  exclusive  responsibility  for 
any  further  action. 

"C.  A.  Briggs." 

"  When  I  interrogated  him  particularly  with  reference 
to  the  declaration  he  made  to  this  Court,  that  he 
should  continue  under  all  circumstances  to  teach,  so 
long  as  he  lived,  the  doctrines  to  answer  for  which  he 
was  brought  to  the  bar  of  this  Court,  he  replied  that 
he  had  only  to  reiterate  the  declaration,  that  whatso- 
ever might  be  the  disposition  of  this  case,  whatsoever 
action  we  might  take  this  afternoon,  with  reference  to 
it,  he  should  still  teach,  as  he  has  done  heretofore, 
these  doctrines  which  he  sincerely  believes.  It  was  in 
view  of  this  declaration,  that  your  Committee  took  the 
action  which  is  now  to  be  reported  by  the  Chairman." 

"The  Rev.  Thomas  A.  Hoyt,  D.  D.,  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Judgment,  presented  the  following  Re- 
port, which  was  adopted  :  " 


376 

' '  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  in  session  at  Washington, 
D.  C,  June  1,  1893. 


Presbyterian   Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America, 

Appellant, 


On  appeal  from 
the  final  judg- 


vs.  )      ment     of     the 

Presbytery    of 


Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D., 

Appellee. 


New  York. 


This  appeal  being  regularly  issued  and  coming  on  to 
be  heard  on  the  judgment,  the  notice  of  appeal,  the 
appeal,  and  the  specifications  of  errors  alleged ;  and  the 
record  in  the  case  from  the  beginning,  and  the  reading 
of  said  record  having  been  omitted  by  consent,  and  the 
parties  hereto  having  been  heard  before  the  judicatory 
in  argument,  and  the  opportunity  having  been  given 
to  the  members  of  the  judicatory  appealed  from  to  be 
heard,  and  they  having  been  heard,  and  opportunity 
having  been  given  to  the  members  of  this  judicatory 
to  be  heard,  and  they  having  been  heard,  as  provided 
by  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and  the  General  Assembly 
as  a  judicatory  sitting  in  said  cause  on  appeal  having 
sustained  the  following  specifications  of  errors,  to  wit : 
all  of  said  specifications  of  errors  set  forth  in  said 
five  grounds  of  appeal,  save  and  except  the  first 
and  fifth  under  the  fourth  ground  of  appeal,  on 
consideration  whereof  this  judicatory  finds  said 
appeal  should  be  and  is  hereby  sustained,  and  tbat  said 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  the  judicatory  appealed  from, 
erred  in  striking  out  said  amended  charges  four  and 
seven,  and  erred  in  not  sustaining  on  the  law  and  the 
evidence  said  amended  charges,  one,  two,  three,  five,  six 
and  eight ;   on  consideration  whereof  this  judicatory 


377 

finds  that  said  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York  is  erroneous  and  should  be  and  is  hereby 
reversed ;  and  this  General  Assembly,  sitting  as  a 
judicatory  in  said  cause,  coming  now  to  enter  judgment 
on  said  amended  charges,  one,  two,  three,  five,  six  and 
eight,  finds  the  Appellee,  the  said  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
has  uttered,  taught  and  propagated  views,  doctrines 
and  teachings  as  set  forth  in  said  charges  contrary  to 
the  essential  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  the 
Standards  of  said  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  in  violation  of  the  ordination 
vow  of  said  Appellee,  which  said  erroneous  teachings, 
views  and  doctrines  strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion  and 
have  been  industriously  spread ;  wherefore,  this 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  sitting  as  a  judicatory  in 
this  cause  on  appeal,  does  hereby  suspend  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  the  said  Appellee,  from  the  office  of  a  minister 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  until  such  time  as  he  shall  give  satisfactory 
evidence  of  repentance  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
for  the  violation  by  him  of  the  said  ordination  vow  as 
herein  and  heretofore  found. 

And  it  is  ordered  that  the  Stated  Clerk  of  this 
General  Assembly  transmit  a  certified  copy  of  this 
judgment  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  to  be  made 
a  part  of  the  record  in  this  case. 

It  was  also  ordered  that  a  copy  be  furnished  to  the 
Appellee,  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D. 

Attest, 

Wm.  Henry  Roberts, 
seal.  Stated  Clerk" 

(Minutes  General  Assembly,  1893,  pp.  163-4.) 


378 


Vote  of  Thanks  to  the  Prosecuting  Committee. 

Upon  motion  of  the  Rev.  William  C.  Young,  D.  D., 
the  following  preambles  and  resolution  were  adopted : 

"Whereas,  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  of  which  the 
Rev.  Gr.  W.  F.  Birch,  D.  D.,  is  Chairman,  appointed 
in  compliance  with  Sec.  11  of  the  Book  of  Discipline, 
has  conducted  the  prosecution  in  the  case  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  in  all  its 
stages,  in  whatever  judicatory,  until  the  final  issue  has 
been  reached,  and, 

"Whereas,  The  Presbytery  of  New  York,  at  the 
close  of  its  proceedings  on  the  4th  day  of  November, 
1891,  when  it  passed  the  resolution  dismissing  the  said 
case,  took  the  following  action  : 

"  ' Hesolved,  That  a  vote  of  thanks  be  tendered  to  the 
Committee  for  its  diligence  and  fidelity,'  and 

"Whereas,  The  final  judgment  of  the  said  Presby- 
tery of  New  York,  in  the  said  case,  entered  on  the  9th 
day  of  January,  1893,  declared  as  follows  :  '  Accord- 
ingly the  Presbytery,  making  full  recognition  of  the 
ability,  sincerity  and  patience  with  which  the  Com- 
mittee of  Prosecution  have  performed  the  onerous 
duties  assigned  them,  does  now,  to  the  extent  of  its 
constitutional  power,  relieve  said  Committee  from 
further  responsibility  in  connection  with  this  case.' 
Therefore  be  it 

"Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  General  Assembly 
and  of  the  entire  Church  are  due  to  the  members  of 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  for  the  diligence,  fidelity, 
ability  and  Christian  spirit  in  which  they  have  per- 
formed the  onerous  and  difficult  duties  devolved  upon 
them."  (Minutes  General  Assembly,  1893,  pp.  166,  167.) 


I 


M 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


MAY     2  1967 — I 


REr        ' O 


IllftH  ?R7r8  AM 


rP^ti 


y^pi^i^i^uio^  /^o 


INTiJMmRARY 


LOAN 


' 


LD  21-100m-8,*34 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


X 


